Licensing domestic production of refined products, but not herbal cannabis;

Making CBD (a non-psychoactive cannabinoid) available over the counter.

These are all very welcome moves in the right direction – but they don’t go far enough, and will leave many patients disappointed.

One in twenty New Zealanders uses cannabis medicinally, and patients say they find pharmaceutical options like Sativex to be expensive, difficult to obtain and less effective than herbal cannabis.

It appears no patients or advocacy groups have had any input into the new legislation. Good policy making would put patients at the center of the process.

Patients have called for self-provision or home growing, creating a patient ID card or register, creating a legal defense of medical necessity, and a moratorium on arrests.

Not allowing herbal use will leave thousands of medicinal cannabis users in the same position they are currently in – criminals for just trying to manage their illness. We should not put administrative ease ahead of patient-focused care.

The test of any proposed law change should be: What would Helen Kelly do? Helen Kelly didn’t campaign for pharmaceutical-only access. Helen wanted patients and caregivers to be able to grow their own, like a herbal remedy.

According to UMR polling NORML conducted with Helen Kelly last year, 76 per cent agreed when asked “Should Parliament change the laws of New Zealand so that patients have safe legal access to affordable medicinal cannabis and cannabis products when prescribed by a licensed doctor?”

There’s been quite a lot of mainstream media attention on the Bitcoin phenomenon recently. And while any amount of prognostication about whether its runaway increases in value represent a bubble can be found pretty much wherever one cares to look, there’s one aspect of the present Bitcoin boom that I think’s been somewhat under-discussed.

Namely, the way in which what we’re seeing right now is arguably a ‘glimpse into the future’.

And I don’t mean that in the simple sense of currency being decoupled from states [not least because recent developments in both Venezuela and Russia appear to suggest that you can perfectly viably run cryptocurrencies *as* a state .. and potentially have them actually ‘worth’ something, so to speak], nor the Cyberpunkishness of Darknet-denizens paying for elaborately staged murders or exceedingly cheap-for-quality hard-drug procurations.

Or, in other words, this is *exactly* how a pretty broad swathe of economic activity is going to go down over the next few decades. Human “operators” – capitalists, entrepreneurs, bourgeoiCPU, whatever … presiding over effectively automated workforces … who do ever more ‘stuff’ to generate a nominal economic return, that’s probably functionally pointless except insofar as it leads to some electrons indicating nominal value flowing around an increasingly digitized economy.

While, at the same time, draining ever further quotients of *real* resources out here in the non-cyber world [in this case, power-inputs – but no doubt all manner of other things, too, with time], to turn into largely imaginary [except for its somewhat subjectively agreed upon worth by an investor clade] ‘output’.

And meanwhile, you’ll have this ever-expanding class of regular ol’ Humans who’re basically ‘locked out’ of the whole thing, because they have neither the investment capital necessary to set up an operation of their own inside an increasingly hard-to-get-into market [I mean seriously – the level of coin, bit or otherwise, required to buy the hardware necessary to run a commercially viable mining rig is *ridiculous*, let alone the power-bills] , nor the technological skills to viably participate in this cyber-economy in other ways that’ll effectively allow them to make ends meet without assistance.

Personally, I think this whole setup is pretty fundamentally wasteful. Of a whole lot of things. Of the aforementioned physical resources, for a start [because seriously – you’re not producing anything tangible via bitcoin-mining except an ongoing arguable “bubble”]; but also of a huge swathe of yet-living human potential. Who are now, after all, just straight-up “surplus to requirements” in so many senses of the term.

But at the same time, it’s interesting to consider the way in which Bitcoin and its generation shows that straight-up a lot of the way in which wealth is derived in our economic system [whether present or [near-]future] doesn’t actually involve any real effort on the part of the presumptive main beneficiaries of same, other than the initial set-up of capital goods and *maybe* some wrangling of finance here and there.

It’s then ‘distributed’ out by the owners & employers of capital to various beneficiaries from same – whether investors, perhaps, or whatever workforce they’ve got under them in their operation, or whomever’s selling the next round of hardware, software, and other resource-inputs [like POWER! UNLIMITED POWER!] which might be needed to keep the whole thing operational in the short-to-medium-to-long term.

OF course, to bring this back to those aforementioned ‘surplus’ humans who aren’t capable of supporting this whole venture … that’s where things start to get a bit messy. Because these people have no share of the wealth that’s thusly generated, whilst it’s quite plausible that the rest of the economy which they might otherwise be employed in, is steadily atrophying and dying.

The impacts of having an ever larger swathe of your population with ever less money to spend is pretty obvious – both in economic terms; but also, dependent upon what welfare/redistributive apparatoi look like in your society, quite probably in human/humanitarian terms as well.

Where am I going with this?

Well, one of the main arguments people often have against a UBI, is that it entails giving people money for nothing. And that isn’t necessarily true imo , on grounds that a lot of people perform a helluvalot of unpaid and unrecognized labour *anyway* [think caregivers and homemakers], with a UBI arguably forming a partial recognition & remuneration for that. But I digress.

This misses the point that increasingly, on into the future, the way that income is derived for *just about everybody* outside of an ever-narrowing field of occupations, is going o be precisely that – income that is handed to them not through any actual hard work or effort on their part [again, barring initial set-up bist and pieces, for the most part] … but instead simply as a result of property rights [i.e. a return on increasingly entirely automated capital].

Phrased in these terms, then, when we talk about a UBI we are not simply suggesting that it’s one serious way by which an economy might avoid straight-up crash as a result of greater automation being a thing.

But rather, we are making the case that in a vaguely similar manner to the investor/’miner’ class, one’s right as a stakeholder in the Nation effectively entitles one to a comparable income-stream as a result of this and this potentially alone. [Whether one wishes to get into the extent to which individuals-as-citizens actually play a role in ‘investing’ in the Nation and supporting its existence through their ongoing civic behavior, or whathaveyou]

Or, to say it another way … if it is necessary for ongoing economic activity for people to be able to spend money, and we have effectively ‘decoupled’ the main source of income for a pretty important [economically] portion of society from actual effort [although ‘risk’ is perhaps another matter], then why do we not look more favourably upon continuing this ‘decoupling’ for the rest of society at large with a view to *ensuring* that people actually *do* have the ability to spend such money as may be necessary to keep the economy as a whole ticking over.

And I would rather suspect that the power-inputs and other such things hat would go into supporting a UBI scheme would be far an away less wasteful all-up than what we’re presently seeing with Bitcoin.

It is with great concern that the manipulation of rosters to deny staff alternative holidays at Restaurant Brands has been confirmed to be so widespread that it must have been company policy at a senior level.

When we raised this problem with your HR department in the past they denied it was policy and said it was just being done by some rogue managers.

This is clearly not the case.

The company policy in the past was that you had to have worked three out of four of the previous Monday’s if the public holiday was on a Monday to earn an entitlement to a lieu day. This was a narrow interpretation designed to benefit the company but even that policy was deliberately manipulated to deny entitlement.

The Employment Relations Authority has now ruled that a simple majority of weeks worked over three month period to avoid manipulation is enough to trigger an entitlement.

As a chief executive, who was paid a million dollar bonus because of the success of the company, you have to take moral and legal responsibility for ensuring all staff get their legal entitlements.

The company, or at least the agents of the company, have failed to be open and honest with Unite or its staff over this issue. We have lost confidence in their ability to do so in the future.

At the same time, we are still waiting for a substantive response to the annual leave calculation issue that we first raised in February 2015, over two and a half years ago. Unite Union, despite alerting RBL to the issue in the first place, has not been consulted or involved in the investigation of and solution to the problem. RBL has only provided us with a brief timeline for remediation that will now clearly not be met. Our members, your employees, simply do not have confidence that RBL will make sure they get the wages and leave they are legally entitled to.

We would like a meeting with you personally to get an assurance that this will not continue and that that company accepts it has been at fault and will do all in its power to ensure that the thousands of staff who have worked for the company over at least the past six years get their legal entitlements.

IMAGINE THE REACTION if Finance Minister, Grant Robertson, announced a broad-ranging, government-sponsored seminar on progressive economics chaired by Yanis Varoufakis. Vilified and demonized by EU bankers and politicians for his heterodox economic ideas, Varoufakis resigned as Greece’s Finance Minister rather than impose yet another of the European Central Bank’s crushing economic diktats on his impoverished homeland.

Inviting Varoufakis to chair a seminar on progressive economics would constitute the clearest possible proof that the Labour-NZ First Coalition’s promise to be a “transformational government” was genuine. International and domestic market reaction to such an announcement would, however, be instantaneous and extreme. New Zealand’s government would be portrayed as having taken leave of its senses.

And, in many respects, the markets would be right. Varoufakis is one of neoliberal capitalism’s most outspoken and acute critics. Winston Peters might have declared his determination to give capitalism a human face, but Varoufakis would likely argue that the necessary transplant operation would entail far more effort than it was worth! Hardly surprising given his belief that the leading capitalist nations have been waging an unrelenting war on their poorest citizens for the past forty years.

Writing for the latest newsletter of Project Syndicate, Varoufakis marvels at the “bourgeois rage” directed at the “militant parochialists” responsible for Brexit and Trump:

“The range of analysis is staggering. The rise of militant parochialism on both sides of the Atlantic is being investigated from every angle imaginable: psychoanalytically, culturally, anthropologically, aesthetically, and of course in terms of identity politics. The only angle that is left largely unexplored is the one that holds the key to understanding what is going on: the unceasing class war unleashed upon the poor since the late 1970s.”

As evidence for his class war claim, Varoufakis presents the following stark statistics:

“In 2016, the year of both Brexit and Trump, two pieces of data, dutifully neglected by the shrewdest of establishment analysts, told the story. In the United States, more than half of American families did not qualify, according to Federal Reserve data, to take out a loan that would allow them to buy the cheapest car for sale (the Nissan Versa sedan, priced at $US12,825). Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, over 40% of families relied on either credit or food banks to feed themselves and cover basic needs.”

Unleashing Varoufakis on the equivalent New Zealand data would doubtless produce a series of equally startling conclusions. Which is why Grant Robertson, himself, would, almost certainly, resign rather than invite someone like Varoufakis to draw the obvious policy conclusions from the last 30 years of class war in New Zealand – especially since many of that war’s most destructive campaigns were conducted under the generalship of Labour Party politicians!

Robertson’s pitch to New Zealand’s capitalist class is very different from Varoufakis’s unabashed “economic humanism”. Only this morning, (11/12/17) speaking to the Auckland Chamber of Commerce, Robertson declared:

“For us to keep being able to afford the policies necessary to achieve higher living standards we must remain fiscally responsible. It goes without saying that a Government that presides over high deficits, increasing debt, or a shrinking economy could not provide the quality public services that New Zealanders want and deserve. That is why we have developed and committed to our Budget Responsibility Rules.”

Which is precisely the sort of language that Varoufakis encountered when he travelled to Brussels on his doomed missions to secure a more rational approach to managing the consequences of Greece’s crippling indebtedness. That Robertson shows every sign of being as committed to following “the rules” as the European Central Bank’s pitiless bailiffs, strongly suggests that, even if he could, somehow, be prevailed upon to organise a seminar on progressive economics, and invite Varoufakis to chair it, the maverick Greek economist would feel obliged to decline.

The former Greek Finance Minister’s own experience tells him that “the rules” formulated by the world’s economic and political elites; “the rules” bankers and politicians consider themselves bound in solemn duty to uphold and enforce at all costs; are, in reality, no more than “the rules of engagement” in neoliberal capitalism’s “unceasing class war” against the poor. If Varoufakis was ever to accept an invitation to chair a government-sponsored seminar on progressive economics, it would only be because he had already been convinced, by their actions, that the politicians asking him to elaborate a more “transformational” political economy were rule-breakers – not rule-keepers.

The exposure of the theft of alternative holidays – otherwise known as lieu days – by the Wendy’s corporation has opened up a pandora’s box of holiday theft allegations across this and other industries.

As a result, Unite Union will be launching a public campaign to stop employers being a Grinch by stealing workers’ holidays this Christmas and New Year!.

Last month the Employment Relations Authority found that workers at Wendy’s had been denied their alternative holiday entitlement by the company for working on a public holiday if that day “was an otherwise working day” for them. The company seemed to assume that no workers had a regular shift pattern and therefore couldn’t have an otherwise working day. Only after being challenged by the Labour Inspector did they introduce a formal system that required workers to have worked all three of the previous relevant days before the holiday to become eligible.

The Authority found this system was too restrictive and that the company had to comply with the law that meant entitlement should be determined in individual cases. The authority suggested a guideline that was much more generous than Wendy’s or other fast food companies have been using. Workers should only have to work a bare majority of shifts over a longer period like three months to stop companies manipulating shift allocation to deny entitlement.

For many years Restaurant Brands managers were using what was dubbed the “yellow list” to deny an alternative hioliday by manipulating the roster. This was to avoid their own policy of only granting an alternative holiday if the worker had worked three of four of the days in question. Even this restrictive policy has been found unlawful by the Authority and so we will be claiming back pay for the thousands of times alternative holidays have been denied over the past decade.

Restaurant Brands now have fixed shifts which can’t be manipulated in the same way. But we will be asking the company to apply the law back at least six years for all previous staff as Wendy’s are required to do by the Authority decision.

We had assumed that it was pretty automatic that the time and a half was being paid. But this has proved not to be the case as well in some cases where the payroll system was set up to automatically treat any hours worked past midnight as belonging to the previous day. This meant that closing shift staff who worked past midnight into a public holiday were being automatically denied time and a half for the time worked and an alternative holiday if they also did not work the public holiday as well. We now have some reports that we are looking into that Restaurant Brands was also doing this. This is of serious concern to the union because we raised issues with Restaurant Brands about workers missing out time and a half several years ago and they claimed it was only a few rogue managers winding the clock back rather than a systemic problem.

Around the same time, McDonald’s were caught doing something similar and acknowledged it was a systemic problem and pledged to correct it.

The cheating of workers on their time and a half and alternative holidays is on top of another unsettled bill these companies have with their workers for miscalculating annual leave entitlements.

Again Unite first wrote to the fast food companies on these issues over three years ago. The main problem was that they should have been calculating annual leave entitlements according to the law and they were not. Wendy’s, McDonald’s and Restaurant Brands are now being investigated directly by MBIE – the government ministry responsible for enforcing legal minimums.

The companies main “mistake” was failing to calculate a week correctly. Alll annual leave should be calculated as a full weeki or part of a full week. Instead, the companies just accumulated and paid leave in hours. They then also failed to calculate the payment of that leave at the “higher of” their average pay or their pay over the most recent four weeks. The law required this in cases where workers hours are often variable, like the fast food industry to be able to reflect changing work patterns.

The end result could be a bill of tens millions of dollars for hundreds of thousands of workers who have been cheated out of their basic legal rights by some of the biggest companies on earth.

Last week Trade Minister David Parker said “it’s not fair that we subjugate ourselves to the interests of the one per cent” and promised to tame the “excesses of globalised capital”.

‘Today, we learned the new government has added New Zealand’s name to a proposal designed to lead to foreign investment rules in the WTO at this week’s ministerial meeting in Argentina,’ said Auckland University Professor Jane Kelsey, who is in Buenos Aires to speak at an academic conference associated with the WTO ministerial.

The Proposed Ministerial Statement on Investment Facilitation for Development was released this morning on behalf of 37 countries, including China, Japan, Russia and the EU. It endorses a draft Ministerial Decision that would establish a Working Group on Investment Facilitation with a mandate to begin building an investment framework in the WTO.

Professor Kelsey calls it ‘deeply ironic that the draft statement calls on governments “to create a more transparent, efficient, and predictable environment for facilitating cross-border investment”. “Transparent, efficient, and predictable” rules to facilitate foreign investment are code for the kind of constraints on investment regimes that the Labour-led government criticised in the TPPA, as it called for greater flexibility.’

‘Appeals in the draft statement to seemingly benign notions of “investment facilitation” to promote “development” are a Trojan Horse for breaking the blockage on investment negotiations in the WTO’.

Moves in 1996, 2001 and 2003 to get negotiations on foreign investment rules in the WTO failed, with opponents insisting that the WTO remains within its mandate on trade.

The current proposal eschews the inclusion of market access, investor protection and ISDS, found in agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. But Professor Kelsey warns that they are bound to re-appear once investment is on the WTO agenda, as a number of proponents are deeply wedded to the existing model.

‘The new government has promised consultation on a progressive new agenda for trade and investment. Here we have another example of it pre-empting decisions on how New Zealand should approach these issues in the international arena’.

Noting that New Zealand First and the Greens have voiced stronger opposition than Labour to such investment rules, Professor Kelsey called on them to pressure their coalition partner to withdraw New Zealand’s name from this proposal.

“ The hard bit of that is reorganising Government – the way the Government works with our most complex families – because frankly, Government doesn’t do that good a job with people who have really serious needs.

So you shouldn’t expect waves of cash – that’s what everyone else is promising. We can tell you from years of looking at it hard, throwing money at intractable social problems won’t have an impact.”

“ Yeah well if throwing money was the answer to this problem then quite frankly we would see – you know the numbers are coming down significantly through those Labour years, because they put significantly more money into these organisations, but we haven’t seen fewer children being neglected.”

And repeated it;

“ If I thought throwing an extra 30 or 40 dollars a week at beneficiaries would mean that those children were not abused and neglected, I’d be fighting with that with every inch that I’ve got. It is far more complex than that. Far more complex.”

“ Labour’s first instinct is always to throw money at an advertising campaign, rather than fighting fire with fire.”

And even National backbenchers like Melissa Lee added their ten cents worth and said it;

“ It is less about throwing money around on a problem and more about changing the way we work, so that the services we deliver are more effective.”

One of the most commonly parroted cliches from the rightwing of politics; “throwing money at the problem” – usually with the add-on; ” – doesn’t solve anything“.

Except, of course, when it comes to tax-cuts. Then it’s not so much “throwing money” at middle class and affluent voters – as labelling it a “reward” – as Joyce called it in May 2017;

“ The Budget 2017 Family Incomes Package will provide better rewards for hard work by adjusting the bottom two tax thresholds and lowering the marginal tax rates for low and middle income earners.”

Joyce’s proposed tax-cut wasn’t “throwing money” at families – it was described more like “… important that Kiwi families directly share in the benefits of New Zealand’s economic growth.”

National ministers were adamant that “throwing money at problems… made no difference to those problems”. But – according to Joyce – throwing money at households through tax-cuts achieved a remarkable outcome;

“ The measures in this budget are expected to lift 20,000 households above the threshold for severe housing stress, and reduce the number of children living in families receiving less than half of the median income by around 50,000.”

Perhaps there are two different forms of money being used; red money for the poor; blue money for the middle class? Perhaps National should have printed less of the red stuff, and more of the blue?

Obviously child poverty exists in this country. Despite former Social Welfare Minister, Paula Bennett, refusing to measure the size of the problem five years ago – by September this year, National’s (then-)new, Bill English was forced to concede that it was a serious crisis confronting our country. In the face of mounting pressure from a resurgent Labour, he finally admitted that at least 100,000children were living in poverty;

“ The Package is designed to especially assist low and middle income earners, and will reduce the number of children living in families earning less than half of the median income by around 50,000. Labour showed their true colours by voting against it.”

“ If we can get elected within two or three years we can have a crack at the next 50,000 children, getting them out of poverty.”

Suddenly, it seems, National ‘discovered’ child poverty existed in this country. It’s amazing how focused a government can be at election time when opposition parties are nipping at their heels.

Perhaps we should have an election every year?

In 2015, National stole a policy page from the Left by announcing it would raise welfare benefits by $25 a week. (Actually, $23 per week after extra accomodation supplements were taken out. Can’t have “benes” wasting an extra $2 on milk, bread or something equally silly.) Almost overnight, National went from “not throwing money at welfare” – to “throwing money at welfare”.

According to a Radio NZ report, an estimated 110,000 families, with 190,000 children, would benefit from the increase.

The result was a predictable (if slight) success: child poverty fell by 1%.

According to the 2017 Child Poverty Monitor, released by the office of the Children’s Commissioner today, the number of children living in homes considered to be in income poverty has dropped one percent in the last year – from 295,000 (28 percent) in 2016 to 290,000 (27 percent) this year.

Other figures from the annual report, now in its fifth year, also show a dip in the number of children considered to be from New Zealand’s poorest homes – with 70,000 children (six percent) satisfying the threshold for experiencing severe material hardship, down two percent from 85,000 in 2016.

[…]

“In 1982, the percentage of children in families experiencing income poverty was 14 percent, compared to 27 percent now”, the report said.

Paula Bennett – who only five years ago stated categorically that “if throwing money was the answer to this problem then quite frankly we would see – you know the numbers are coming down significantly” – crowed about the success of a fall in poverty;

“ Judge Andrew Becroft has today confirmed that since the National Government increased benefits in 2015, there has been a drop in the number of children living in low income households.

This is great news and further consolidates National’s track record as a party that shows it cares, rather than just says it cares.

We were the Government that increased benefits for the first time in 40 years. Since 2010 we reduced the number of children living in material hardship by 135,000 and since 2011 we reduced the number of children in benefit-dependent households by 61,000.”

It’s “throwing money at the problem” only until it works. Then it’s a success story, according to a right-wing minister.

“ I think we have seen a real rise in the commitment by charities and NGOs and community groups. I think that is one of the untold stories; New Zealand, I think, understands the situation. There is much more of a humanitarian response. Communities are behind what is going on. Charities are doing good work. I think that is underestimated in all of this in terms of providing shoes, clothing, lunches, breakfast. I think the country as a whole is becoming much more involved, and I am encouraged by that.”

When asked by The Nation’s Lisa Owen;

“ So that is charities. That is philanthropy. In terms of income poverty: barely a change. Charities can only give so much, though, can’t they?”

Judge Becroft responded;

“ Yeah, that is true. I think the government has got the ultimate responsibility to put in a strong safety net.”

Charities can apply band-aids like buying shoes for children or supplying school breakfasts. But it takes central government to lift incomes. Just as it took the previous National government to legislate to lift the wages (albeit over a five year period) of community support workers, home support, and aged-care staff.

Bennett was quick to claim credit for the fall in the number of children living in low income households by increasing welfare benefits.

It is time that National and other right-wing politicians abandoned their deceptive, emotionally-charged rhetoric that raising welfare benefits and other incomes is “throwing money at the problem”. Clearly it is not. Putting our taxes into unnecessary flag referenda, sheep deals for middle east businessmen, aluminium smelters, and cutting taxes for the rich – is “throwing money” away.

Constantly repeating the hoary “throwing money at the problem” cliche reminds us that the right is only too happy to use emotionally-charged rhetoric to win public support. Even when it is a lie.

Putting money into alleviating child poverty is not “throwing money at the problem”. The data has conclusively shown this to be a fact; additional money helps lift families out of poverty.

Ironically, by making such dishonest utterances, they undermine their very real achievement in this area.

Shooting yourself in your own foot has never been so painful. Or stupid.

This was a timely award in view of ICAN’s role in laying the groundwork for signing this year of an international treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons, which puts extra pressure on the nuclear-armed states – who haven’t yet signed the treaty – to begin a full disarmament process.

New Zealand can take a bit of the credit for the success of ICAN, and the adoption of the international treaty. In 2011 Kiwi Thomas Nash co-founded the London-based NGO Article 36 which then joined ICAN. In 2013 Nash authored a ground-breaking paper “Banning Nuclear Weapons” which proposed the new and successful strategy of pursuing an international treaty prohibition on nuclear weapons, even without the presently nuclear-armed states.

Nash, Article 36 and ICAN then worked around the world hosting meetings which acted as incubators to promote and develop the strategy to ban nuclear weapons through an international treaty.

After four years of solid work, with Nash playing a major role, this July a UN conference adopted a Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, with 122 nations voting in favour (including New Zealand) to one against. Sixty nine nations didn’t vote – including all the nuclear-weapons states.

The New Zealand delegation to the UN conference included some experienced civil society campaigners, including Kate Dewes from Christchurch’s Disarmament and Security Centre.

New Zealand has a long history of active anti-nuclear NGOs, several of whom are involved in ICAN via their international parent bodies. These include the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and Pax Christi – all of whom are represented on the ICAN international steering committee.

The only downer to this weekend’s award ceremony in Oslo is that only one of the nuclear weapons states, Russia, is sending a high ranking ambassador. The other nuclear states are downplaying it – perhaps because they are embarrassed at their lack of engagement with a nuclear disarmament process.

[Thomas Nash is back living in New Zealand as was a Green candidate in this year’s election]

Palestinians living under belligerent Israeli military Occupation are forbidden to peacefully resist the Occupation and are prohibited from attending or organising any assembly, vigil or public protest of a political nature involving more than ten people. Military Order 101 was passed 50 years ago and applies to both public and private gatherings. Punishment for breaching the order can result in up to ten years imprisonment, with additional heavy fines. This November, the Israeli Army, firing rubber-coated steel bullets, stun grenades and tear gas, suppressed 12 peaceful demonstrations in Palestinian towns, villages and UN refugee camps. Protesters were wounded and hospitalised, and many became tear gas casualties.

Denial of freedom of movement – flying checkpoints

In addition to its permanent military checkpoints, Israeli Occupation forces deploy, by both day and night, what are called flying checkpoints. They severely disrupt movement, with devastating consequences for the population’s health, economy and other essentials, including education. In November alone, there were at least 428 such curtailments of freedom. Every type of vehicle, including ambulances and other emergency vehicles, are subject to hold-ups, which can last for hours. Besides flying checkpoints, the Israeli Army closes Palestinian roads, using concrete blocks or mounds of rubble and earth. Agricultural produce held up in such manner must be unloaded and then reloaded onto another vehicle that can continue the journey from the other side of the obstacle. Such delays can prove ruinous, to both Palestinian farmers and the economy.

On the anniversary of Universal Children’s Day, international NGO Save the Children released a statement highlighting Israeli violations of the rights of Palestinian children in Occupied Palestine. Jennifer Moorhead, the country director of Save the Children, called for greater protection of schools and children’s right to education, saying that “children’s most fundamental right to education is being eroded”. Moorhead highlighted the cases of 55 Palestinian schools in Area C, the more than 60% of the West Bank under full Israeli civilian and security control, that are under threat of demolition by Israeli forces. “Distance, risky roads, the presence of settlers or of military checkpoints had presented insurmountable challenges for many children to reach the nearest schools,” Moorhead said, adding: “School demolitions, threats of violence and harassment, military presence in and around school premises and lack of adequate resources are all undermining children’s basic right to education.”

Statistical summary for November

Gaza ceasefire violations:

With regard to Gaza, while, unfortunately, there were no situation reports available for seven days of that month, those covering the remaining 23 are revealing.

Palestinian ceasefire violations:

There were two Palestinian ceasefire violations reported.
1. Resistance fighters opened fire on Israeli Army vehicles to the east of Khan Yunis. This single attack on a military target was hugely outnumbered by Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians.
2. 12 missiles fired towards Israel from north Beit Hanun.

Israeli ceasefire violations:

The Israeli Navy opened fire on Palestinian fishing boats on 24 occasions, with one fishing vessel hijacked and a fisherman wounded. The terrorising of Palestinian fishing crews is causing a massive decline in the productivity of the industry.

The Israeli Army opened fire on Palestinian farms on 20 occasions. On two other days, the Israeli Army made incursions onto Gaza farmland, opening fire and bulldozing crops. On 29 November, Israel carried out chemical weapon air strikes on Palestinian farm workers. These constant attacks on Gaza’s agriculture are contributing to the crises in both health and the economy there.

While there were but two Palestinian ceasefire violations reported for the entire month of November, Israeli forces on land, at sea and in the air, committed at least 64 violations.

Israel’s Daily Toll on the West Bank and Gaza: (Excerpts from) In Occupied Palestine daily newsletters

Israel’s human rights abuses and destruction inflicted in the Occupied West Bank and Jerusalem are too numerous to recount here, so what follows is a selection of just one per day of the dozens that daily typify the atmosphere of Occupation and Israeli malevolence towards a captive population. Due to mainstream news media complicity, these violations remain largely unreported. Even an Israeli chemical weapons strike on Gaza at the end of November was ignored. Here is a brief daily summary (one event selected from the many others for each day) of the Palestinian people’s experience of just one month of Israeli military subjugation.

November 16 children wounded in Israeli Army home invasions in UN refugee camp. Jerusalem – 12:00, Israeli forces, firing rubber-coated steel bullets, stun grenades and tear gas, injured six unidentified children during a raid on the Shuafat UN refugee camp. Several homes and shops were invaded and one resident was taken prisoner.

November 2Israeli Army destroys Palestinian family home. Hebron – 11:10, Israeli forces destroyed a Palestinian family home in the al-Bas district.

November 3Armed Israeli settler terrorists attack Palestinian farmers. Tubas – 13:00, armed settler terrorists from the Migola Israeli Occupation settlement stormed the Ein al-Sakut area in the North Jordan Valley, opening fire and attacking Palestinian farmers. The settlers also beat up and hospitalised one farmer, Hafith Zamal Abdel-Raziq, and forced others off the land.

November 6Occupation settler violence – plunder – agricultural sabotage: Tubas – morning, Israeli Occupation settler militants raided the al-Sakkut area in the North Jordan Valley and cut 400 metres off an irrigation pipeline to Palestinian farms. The Zionists then stole the severed section of pipeline and threatened violence against any Palestinian farmers, in order to keep them off the land.

November 8Occupation settler violence – hospitalisations – Israeli Army complicity – agricultural sabotage: Nablus – 11:10, Israeli forces, in east Urif village, fired stun grenades and tear gas at a couple of Palestinian olive harvesters who were trying to defend themselves from an attack by fanatics from the Yitzhar Israeli Occupation settlement. Taysir Mahmoud Sabah and his wife were both hospitalised in the settler violence.

November 9Israeli Army – 12-year-old child terrorised: Bethlehem – 13:00, Israeli soldiers in North Bethlehem seized, and held captive for a time, a 12-year-old child, Ahmad Muhammad Harb Al-Azat.

November 13Home invasions – robbery: Ramallah – dawn, Israeli forces raided Deir Abu Masha’al, searched several homes, took prisoner one person and robbed him of 5000 NIS (US$1287), which had been collected for the rebuilding of a home destroyed by the Israeli Army.

November 17Occupation settler violence – children pepper-sprayed – stoning: Hebron – a mob from the Kiryat Arba Israeli Occupation settlement stoned Palestinian homes and pepper-sprayed the faces of two children.

November 18Raid – land seizure: Tulkarem – Israeli forces raided Shufa village and issued an order for Israeli Army seizure of approximately 60 acres (24.5 hectares) of residential land in Shufa. The land theft is for the benefit of the Avni Havits Israeli Occupation settlement to provide a football field and public park for illegal settlers.

November 24Israeli police extortion and oppression of Palestinian youngsters: Jerusalem – 16:00, the Israeli Occupation in Jerusalem City placed two children and a 16-year-old youth – Mehdi Qarayeen (14), Uday Al-Rajabi (14) and Amran Al-Khadour (16) – under house arrest for three days and extorted 2000 NIS (US$500) from each of them to buy their release.

November 25Occupation settler violence: Hebron – 19:00, Israeli settlers near the Al-Ibrahimi Mosque compound assaulted Palestinian youngsters, beating up and hospitalising two children, one of them, Wadi’ Karam Masaud, aged nine. The other child was identified as Islam Ibrahim Al-Fakhouri.

November 29Israeli chemical weapon strikes on Gaza farm workers: Israeli forces sprayed toxic chemicals from the air onto Gaza farmland, injuring three Palestinian agricultural workers. Medical sources in Gaza said the Palestinians suffered chemical burns and severe shortening of breath during the attack and now exhibit symptoms of allergy. Samples of the toxins are being prepared for analysis.

A 2013 report published by the US Department of State – Israel and the Occupied Territories found that Israeli security services abuse, to the extent of actually torturing, Palestinian minors in order to coerce confessions of stone-throwing. A Palestinian journalist and peace activist, Issa Amro, says he has himself heard children under interrogation being asked things like “Do you want to see your mother? Confess to throwing rocks and we will let you see your mother right away.” President Obama last year approved a budget of $3.8 billion a year in military aid to Israel over the next ten years. Israel considered it a right – as well as confirmation of US approval of its conduct. Because, in practice, the US is a huge, and largely uncritical contributor to the Israeli military’s coffers, civil society in America reacted in November by presenting a Bill in the US House of Representatives that would “require the Secretary of State to certify each year to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees that none of the funds the US provided during the previous fiscal year were used, in violation of international law, to subject Palestinian children to physical violence, such as restraint in stress positions, blindfolding and hooding, sensory deprivation, death threats, solitary confinement, detention without charge or trial, lack of access to parents or legal counsel and illegally coerced confessions.”

Solidarity and Resistance

With the majority of Israelis under the thrall of Zionist ideology, the introduction of this Bill in front of the House of Representatives sets an example for us all – to civil society, globally. When the outrage over President Trump’s behaviour regarding Jerusalem dies down – we must not cease to remind the world of Israel’s lawless inhumanities. At times when Zionism finds itself losing the argument, it looks for the resumption of the silence that so often reflects political and news media acquiescence in Israel’s daily war crimes. Our duty is to break that silence – every day. We owe that to the Palestinian people and all who oppose Zionism’s inhumanities, including those vilified Israelis who fight for justice and truth. It means calling on our lawmakers to demand justice for Palestine by building on the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2334. New Zealand’s achievement at the Security Council should herald a new era of solidarity and resistance that values justice and human rights over expediency.

The Labour Government says it will introduce legislation within 100 days to legalise medicinal cannabis, but what does that actually mean, and would Helen Kelly approve?

The test of any proposed new law should be, “What would Helen Kelly want?”

Hint: it’s not expensive pharmaceutical derivatives.

For those who need reminding, this is what Helen said:

“Cannabis is the only thing that gives me relief”

“It’s a mild, cheap and low-key medicine being denied,”

“We need a legal supply”

“The system doesn’t work and fiddling won’t fix it”

“We need a good law. A better law.”

“A person could die waiting right?”

Helen was an outstanding champion of patient’s rights and of the effectiveness of simple, self-made cannabis oils and balms. She was advocating not for expensive pharmaceutical-grade cannabis products but for herbal tinctures and balms that can be easily and cheaply made by anyone.

Most people understand the term “medicinal cannabis” to include real botanical cannabis that is grown by the patient or their caregiver, not just expensive pharmaceutical derivatives.

I’m sure that’s what most people expect when they hear the Government will “legalise medicinal cannabis” – and polls show overwhelming public support for doing this.

According to UMR polling we conducted with Helen Kelly in 2016, 76 per cent agreed when asked“Should Parliament change the laws of New Zealand so that patients have safe legal access to affordable medicinal cannabis and cannabis products when prescribed by a licensed doctor?”

Interestingly, almost 4 out of 5 supporters of a strict approach that requires a doctor’s prescription would also support having medicinal cannabis sold as a herbal remedy.

So how do we ensure the needs of patients are put first and we have legal, safe and affordable access to botanical cannabis?

For perhaps only the next two weeks we have a unique opportunity to shape this law change.

There is a need for urgent action as the window for policy decisions is pre-Xmas 2017 in order for Cabinet sign off and a Bill to be tabled by 4 February 2018 (this is the ‘100 Days’ deadline. Our next window to influence the Bill would be during the Select Committee stage, some time later in 2018).

We need to help and support Government MPs to be bold. We need to remind Labour MPs what Helen Kelly wanted. Despite huge public support including from Grey Power and other groups across the spectrum it seems we need to remind NZ First MPs of the public’s expectations (and also of the economic opportunities from domestic production, and breaking the link with meth, gangs and crime). We don’t need to work on Green MPs right now, as they are all fully committed to this.

The basis of this is to take a patient-focused approach, which is what Helen advocated.

Patient focused: safe affordable access to botanical cannabis. Reforms must be meaningful. Putting the needs of patients first means a system where they are safe, legal, and can access natural (botanical) cannabis, not only pharma products. Affordability is a huge barrier for patient access. The current process is also complicated and confusing and needs to be simplified for both patients and prescribers.

Immediate effect (not just a long-term development pathway). One in twenty New Zealanders now uses cannabis medicinally, according to the Ministry of Health. Many are severely ill with life threatening conditions. These patients will not be helped with a drawn out development pathway (as in Australia). Patients need an accelerated process that allows immediate access – perhaps an interim period so products can be brought to market, and/or an exemption for self-provision.

Domestic production: via licensed providers, including small scale providers (families & individuals). The prohibition on domestic manufacture should be repealed. Producing cannabis-based products in New Zealand will bring down costs to patients (which are largely due to unreasonable pharma-grade standards, regulatory requirements in other counties, strict import controls, and so on). Domestic production would create jobs and potential export revenues. Small scale providers (including families and individuals) should have an easier pathway to being licensed, similar to driver’s license or firearms license.

Self provision: choice to grow your own as a herbal remedy. We think most people consider “legalise medical cannabis” to mean natural botanical cannabis including self-provision. Patients and doctors need choices, not just pharmaceutical products but also herbal remedies. This is what Helen Kelly wanted. Self provision means it can be cheap, quick, natural, and not from gangs.

These policy goals have been endorsed by leading figures in the medicinal cannabis lobby and we are working on reaching consensus with a wider group of influencers (including readers of The Daily Blog!). Our new campaign team includes former MPs and experienced campaigners from other NGOs.

To be successful we must advocate what is possible and do-able by the Government. They won’t put up a Bill that will lose or become a target for opposition attacks.

As a campaign, we must work effectively together with common purpose. While liaising with partner organisations to agree on key points, we must build an army of volunteers and activists who can carry our messages and support the Government to be bold.

All supporters of cannabis law reform are invited to join our ORC’s, or Organised Response Crew. Whether or not you want to be part of this group, it is important we engage in consistent messaging and follow best practice for campaigning.

Are you ready to help? Now is the time. Contact NORML and email your MP, especially those from Labour and NZ First, encouraging them to be bold and to put patients first.

THE BRIEFINGS TO INCOMING MINISTERS (BIMs) have laid bare the accumulated failures of nine years of National Party Government. In sector after sector senior civil servants paint a grim picture of incompetence and neglect. The clear message which emerges from this sorry record is that New Zealand has been the victim of a nine-year austerity programme that nobody – other than the poor – seems to have noticed. Taken together, the BIMs offer stark proof of just how deep the class divisions in this country now run.

The veteran political journalist, Richard Harman, puts it like this: “What the Government is confronting is two separate pressures on its spending – one deferred spending from the austerity imposed by the last Government as a response to the GFC in 2008 and a new force in the form of a rapidly growing, ethnically diverse population.”

One of the reasons the three parties making up the present government were able to secure the votes necessary to win power was because the National-led Government was no longer able to confine the effects of its austerity programme to the poorest – and brownest – working-class communities. The effects of prolonged underfunding were beginning to be felt in New Zealand’s leafy suburbs as well as in its meanest streets. More and more people shared in the common agreement that something must be done.

An understanding that a great deal more money would have to be raised and spent, should have been at the heart of that agreement – and Labour should have been the party that put it there, imbuing it with the moral and intellectual force required to overcome the Right’s inevitable resistance. This had been the strategy of the Labour Party in the early 1930s, and it succeeded brilliantly. Labour took power in 1935 with a comprehensive and progressive manifesto, backed by the irresistible weight of an informed and impatient public.

Sadly, this was not the case in 2017.

Rather than build a broad consensus around the need for a substantial increase in public expenditure, funded by an equally large increase in taxation, Labour set out to convince voters of the exact opposite. No increase in personal income tax contributions were necessary, they were told, not even from the very wealthy. Corporate taxation, similarly, would not need to rise. The rate of the Goods and Services Tax could remain fixed at 15 percent. There would be no Capital Gains Tax, Land Tax or Inheritance Tax. Labour was at pains to let people know that it intended to cleave faithfully to the broad fiscal and economic settings bequeathed to it by the outgoing National Government. Gusts of rhetorical stardust notwithstanding, the new Finance Minister, Grant Robertson, was determined to run a tight fiscal ship.

In essence, Robertson’s strategy was the same as Steven Joyce’s, his predecessor: keep the middle-classes happy. National had done it with rock-bottom interest-rates, and by allowing the value of their personal assets to soar. Labour hoped to keep them happy with promises of free tertiary education and affordable homes for their kids; decent pay raises for teachers, nurses, hospital doctors and civil servants; and the gradual upgrading of New Zealand’s ailing infrastructure as and when finances permitted. For the working-class and beneficiaries there would be lots of smiles and hugs – and bugger-all else.

But, as Harman puts it on Politik: “There is a subtle but strong message running through the Briefings to Incoming Ministers […] which comes near to putting a price that the Government is going to have to pay to implement its promises.”

Unsurprisingly, given the neoliberal predilections of senior Treasury officials, the price envisaged is a capitulation to the idea of opening-up the renovation of New Zealand’s public services and infrastructure to private investors. Robertson’s principal advisers are steering him, very quietly, in the direction of Public-Private-Partnerships. In this they will be greatly assisted by Robertson’s personal aversion to unorthodox economic ideas, and by his determination to stay within the bounds of his “Budget Responsibility Rules”.

No matter that New Zealand is short 75,000 houses, or that 700,000 Kiwis cannot be sure of the purity of their drinking water. Too bad that there aren’t enough beds for the mentally ill, and that the prisons are full-to-overflowing. Unfortunate that our courts are so under-resourced that justice is being denied by trial delays of up to 18 months. Labour will continue to resist the rising clamour for increased spending via the tax rises essential to the maintenance of a civilised society.

The grim picture painted in the BIMs is the consequence of National’s class-driven programme of austerity. Labour’s seeming helplessness in the face of the multiple crises they reveal, is the direct consequence of its refusal to accept that the wounds of austerity can only be healed by applying the sovereign remedy of substantial increases in state spending – facilitated by a radical expansion of the tax base.

US President Trump‘s surrender to Israel’s territorial ambitions reveals contempt for international law, in particular the Fourth Geneva Convention. Trump’s announcement contradicts even the most recent Security Council Resolution, UNSCR 2334 of December 2016. Israel’s control of East Jerusalem, including the Old City, is illegal because under international law, an Occupying power does not have sovereigntyover foreign territory it militarily occupies.

Israel only allows the native Palestinian population in Jerusalem what it calls ‘permanent residency’ status, whereas Israeli settlers enjoy citizenship. Since the 1967 invasion, Israel has been quietly imposing impossible conditions upon the Palestinians to make it near impossible for them to maintain their residency. While Israel continues to subsidise its illegal settlement population, Palestinians are almost always refused building permits. The purpose is obvious.

How times have changed

In 1967, when laws to annex East Jerusalem were enacted, Israel tried to hide the move from the international community, fearing a negative response. The Israeli newspaper Haaretzdescribes the duplicity– a day prior to the Knesset debate on the proposals, a telegram was sent to Israeliambassadors guiding them on how to deal with the issue: “In view of the situation in the [UN] assembly, our public diplomacy [hasbara, in the Hebrew original] must stress the law regarding the holy sites and conceal the first two.”

On 9 September 2016, US State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau stated, in response to a questionthat, “The undisputed fact is that already this year, thousands of settlement units have been advanced for Israelis in the West Bank, illegal outposts and unauthorised settlement units have been retroactively legalised, more West Bank land has been seized for exclusive Israeli use, and there has been a dramatic escalation of demolitions resulting in over 700 Palestinian structures destroyed, displacing more than 1,000 Palestinians. As we’ve said many times before, this does raise real questions about Israel’s long-term intentions in the West Bank.”

Today, US President Trump has united with the Zionist Israel Lobby and Christian fundamentalists. No other country in the world recognises Israel’s ownership of Jerusalem, or its attempts to change the geography and demographic character of the city. By his action over Jerusalem, Trump has declared himself an enemy of justice and imperilled us all. At this critical moment, New Zealand must stand by its principles and affirm, unequivocally, its continued support for UN Security Council Resolution 2334.

“APOCALYPSE IN THE VALLEY OF AMARGEDDON”. The Daily Blog editor, Martyn Bradbury, certainly displays a gift for evocative language! On the subject of President Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, however, I believe Martyn’s evocation of the apocalypse is premature. Trump’s decision is less a sign that Armageddon is imminent, and more a signal that the Zionists’ end-game is about to begin.

By announcing the United States recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Trump has sent two very important messages to the extreme Zionist elements in Israeli society. The first message is brutally simple: the so-called “two-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is dead. The second, to the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, is that, as the political logic of the two-state solution’s demise is followed to its inevitable and brutal conclusion, the United States has got Israel’s back. Not just at the UN Security Council, but everywhere Israel needs American support.

The political logic of the two-state solution’s demise is inextricably bound up with the relentless colonisation of the West Bank by extreme Zionist “settlers”. Essentially, the so-called “settlements” were planted on the West Bank in order to render the formation of a viable Palestinian state impossible. The larger those settlements grow, the tighter the hands of Israeli politicians are bound. The political cost of dismantling the settlements has risen so high that no sensible Israeli any longer believes that a Palestinian state is achievable.

This leaves the Israeli authorities with two options. They can either continue to act as an army of occupation on the West Bank of the Jordan River: controlling every aspect of the Palestinian people’s lives, while Zionist settlements metastasise into every corner of Palestine’s shrinking body. Or, they could simply transform the West Bank into a Palestinian Free Zone.

This latter option has lain dormant in Zionism from its very inception. No matter how eloquently the partisans of a Jewish homeland reassured their Arab neighbours that they had nothing to fear from a future State of Israel, the brute logic of Zionism argued against the longevity of any such attempt at cultural and religious cohabitation. Sooner or later, the sheer impossibility of the two communities, Jewish and Arab, rubbing along together in peaceful coexistence would become apparent. And when that happened, one of those communities would have to go.

Ethnically cleansing the West Bank would, of course, be a gross violation of international law. It would constitute a crime against humanity on a scale not seen since the break-up of the former Yugoslavia, the Rwandan genocide and, more recently, the expulsion of the Rohingya people from Myanmar.

Protected by Donald Trump and the American veto in the UN Security Council, however, Israel is unlikely to much care what the world thinks or does. When all is said and done, isn’t its fifty-year occupation of the West Bank a blatant contravention of international law? And, haven’t Israel’s repeated incursions into Lebanon, and its brutal bombing of the civilian population of Gaza, occasioned many crimes against humanity?

If a decision to expel the Palestinians from the West Bank is taken by the Israeli authorities, it would undoubtedly provoke fury in the Arab world. So great is Israel’s military power, however, that launching any kind of meaningful retaliation against such forced expulsions would risk a potentially devastating Israeli counter-strike.

Some of the most extreme Zionists might even welcome an Arab attack. What better justification for levelling the Al-Aqsa Mosque and laying the foundation-stone for the Third Temple?

Certainly, the rebuilding of “Solomon’s Temple” and the expansion of the State of Israel to the full extent of its biblical boundaries would be welcomed by the tens-of-thousands of so-called “Christian-Zionists” (and fervent Trump supporters) living in the United States. In their eyes, such developments would constitute proof-positive that the “End Times” had well and truly begun.

Last week Statistics NZ released the National Accounts for the year to March 2017, which revealed that working people are receiving only 48.7% of the national pie compared to a peak of 58.7% in 1981.

The value of this decline in today’s dollars is $11,500 a year for every one of the two-million wage and salaried workers in the country.

Most of this decline happened in the late 1980s and early 1990s under both Labour and National-led governments.

During this period, for the first time since the 1930s depression, unemployment re-emerged as a social scourge. Official rates went from almost nothing to hit 10% in the early 1990s and then have rarely ever again fallen below 4%.

Real wages were driven down by around a quarter and have also not recovered fully since. Union membership went from two-thirds of the workforce to 20%. Private sector membership dropped from around half to less than 10%. Workforce protections like overtime rates after 40 hours a week disappeared for most workers. Zero-hour contracts and other forms of precarious labour conditions became endemic.

The real value of benefits was slashed by up to 25% and has continued to decline as a percentage of the average wage because the level has only ever been increased by the consumer price index over the last 30 years which has been less than the average wage movement. This has seen basic benefit levels fall from around 40% of the average wage to 25%. The poverty produced by this cut is real and felt and can’t be discounted as simply a “relative” decline.

National superannuation was cut from 80% of the average wage to 72% but kept at that level since, unlike other beneficiaries since the superannuation rate is linked to the average wage. Raising the age of eligibility from 60 to 65 also radically reduced its overall cost to the government, however.

Official rates of child poverty doubled to 20% and have stayed at that level ever since.

The inequality statistics also grew rapidly in the late 1980s and early 1990 and have not improved since.

At that time, the top rate of income tax was cut from 66% to 33% and the massively unfair flat tax GST was introduced and then progressively increased to its current level of 15%. Inheritance tax, which targetted the very wealthy was abolished. Most forms of capital gains tax were eliminated. Corporate taxes were cut. Taxes on dividends were cut.

Working people on an average wage or less in New Zealand pay around a third of their income in tax of one sort or another. The wealthier you are the less tax you pay. The top one percent treat tax as a voluntary activity. Official IRD data show that less than half of the people with $50 million in wealth pay the top marginal tax rate for declared income.

The whole tax system is radically unfair. It has been designed to shift wealth from working people to the rich and entrench that inequality.

The widespread poverty amongst working people in and out of employment and the associated and growing homelessness was barely touched during the period of the last Labour-led government. Unions were weaker after nine years not stronger. We cannot allow that to happen again.

One of the worst things that was done by the last Labour government was to maintain the unequal position for parents in work or those not in work in terms of child support payments. This was simply a vindictive creation of an artificial difference between the “deserving” and “undeserving” poor. Associated with this was the introduction of a brutal regime at WINZ to make access to even legal entitlements as difficult as possible which achieved a huge drop in the number of people on a benefit that was out of all proportion to the actual drop in unemployment during that period. I am convinced the big growth in homelessness since 2008 is directly related to that policy of excluding people from even their minimal entitlements.

That is why it is extraordinarily disappointing to find out that the tax working group parameters include – no discussion of GST rates, no discussion of an inheritance tax, no discussion of increased income taxes for the rich, no discussion of taxes on wealth. It seems the only thing it can do is look at forms of capital gains or land taxes. This can and should be part of a progressive tax reform but it will not be enough to tackle the accumulated problems associated with the entrenched poverty and inequality in this society.

We need wealth taxes including an inheritance tax. We could at least be looking at Financial Transaction Taxes rather than GST. One proposal I read recently that is worth considering is a tax rate of 70% on income over $200,000 and no tax on the first $20,000. All forms of income should be treated the same as wage income for tax purposes – including capital gains and dividends.

Multinationals operating in this country should have a tax assessed by IRD and imposed on them. If they think the assessed rate is unfair they can open their books to inspection if they want to appeal. Accountancy firms that facilitate tax avoidance like that revealed in the Panama Papers and most recently the Paradise Papers should be made criminally liable as well and prosecuted.

There are many ways of making the rich pay if there is a will to do so. The tax working group could have looked at the whole tax system and proposed a tax policy for the next election that would have significantly increased taxes on the rich and reduced taxes on the big majority. That tax policy would have been a winner in 2021.

When I went to intermediate and secondary school I learnt French. It was the only language on offer and it was part of the compulsory curriculum in my classes at Napier Intermediate and Napier Boys’ High School.

I learnt it not because there was some idea that all/any of us might one day live and work in France or need to converse with anyone in French. It was, I presume, because France was the closest non-English speaking ally of the British empire at the time and because learning another language was an important part of a good education which, in turn, would enhance our understanding and appreciation of English.

Maori language was never offered as an option.

A hell of a lot has changed since then for most of us. But not for Don Brash.

Brash’s comments criticising the use of the Maori language on Radio New Zealand are childish and pathetic. And that’s before we get to the underlying oppressive racism.

Why should New Zealanders, Maori and Pakeha alike, be denied hearing the first language of this country spoken on our public radio network?

We need to hear a lot more of it and not just a few greetings here and there.

It is the birth right of every New Zealander to learn Te Reo and it should be placed alongside English, Maths and Science which are already compulsory to Year 10 (Form 4 to older readers).

I wish I’d had the chance to learn Te Reo at school in Napier.

Language is the cornerstone of culture and this country would be a very different place if all our kids learnt Maori alongside their times tables.

We can’t deny this to another generation of New Zealanders. Let’s get a plan in place to build national pride based on all of us knowing Te Reo.

We discovered less than a week ago that MFAT is hosting ‘consultations’ around the country, with David Parker, this week on the TPPA-11. It appeared to be a last-minute decision to do something before Xmas, and somehow they forgot to send invitations to critics who have attended previous ‘consultations’. Presumably the business sector was given priority notice. There is no information on the MFAT website, but we know at least about these:

The obvious reaction is WTF? There’s no urgency to do this, as the ministers are apparently not now going to meet during the Buenos Aires WTO ministerial on 10-13 December. That suggests the government has been running focus groups or polling which tells them that people are not buying their spin on the old/new TPPA-11 (please let’s NOT call it the CPTPP). Or that they still hope to get a deal they can settle the remaining four issues and sign in February or March. Consulting now would mean the government could do this, claiming it has consulted, and not try to rush something over January which would create more of an outcry. Then they will have the proper ‘consultation’, when it’s too late to do anything.

The government is also holding a separate consultation on Tuesday in Auckland with claimants to the Waitangi Tribunal challenge to the TPPA. There is some time sensitivity for this, as the Crown has to report to the Tribunal by 8 December on its consultation process, but their approach has been derisory to date. But MFAT says it won’t pay for the claimants to take the day off work or even their fare to Auckland – instead, they are offering to meet with individuals in their home town.

This sudden burst of action comes on top of the admissions at the select committee last week by the top MFAT trade official that the government can’t implement more of its election promises – an export tax on water. Parker how agrees.

But an export tax is not the only problem. Water royalties also an investment issue, because it affects foreign firms that are exploiting free water for profit. The TPPA, and some other agreements, say reservations apply to ‘Water, including the allocation, collection, treatment and distribution of drinking water’. But they didn’t say – “This reservation does not apply to the wholesale trade and retail of bottled mineral, aerated and natural water”. Further, those reservations don’t protect a government from an ISDS claim where an investor says the new measure is unfair or inequitable treatment, contrary to its expectations or its investment has been effectively taken away by the deal (indirect expropriation).

The water argument was part of the Waitangi Tribunal arguments as well. The Crown’s expert said that wasn’t a problem because it could still take measures relating to processing and manufacturing of bottled water, but that doesn’t deal with the investors rights on ‘wholesale and retail’ trade of water. Again, the Tribunal didn’t know enough to be able to see through the spin.

There is a pattern – the government/MFAT/Crown say there’s no problem and critiques analysis is wrong, and then later admit it’s actually correct.

I kept saying the NIA was not telling people the truth. But the government spin doctors, advised by MFAT, get away with it because it’s an official document. It was the same with their economic analysis that Labour itself said was fundamentally flawed. The media still run with numbers that are utter fantasy and Labour hasn’t come up with any more credible figures for its old/new TPPA-11.

The government should be pissed off enough about this to demand proper independent analysis. They were fed inaccurate information by the Nats, which was endorsed by MFAT, that they couldn’t restrict foreign owners of residential housing. The space to do so is very limited (as my memo mentioned below explains). But the point is that those selling the old deal lied.

Winston must also be pissed off. First, he was asked to swallow the ISDS rat he has railed against before. Now he’s being told he can’t have the royalty on water that is part of the coalition deal – and says he’s going to introduce the bill anyway, because he doesn’t agree with MFAT’s opinion!

The government knows about these options. The heavily redacted Cabinet paper that was released last week shows they did raise some of them in the TPPA-11 meetings just before APEC, but the officials basically said it would be too late to get any real change.

Well actually, it’s not. Canada is still having discussions, so there is still time if the government has a backbone.

If the pending ‘consultations’ are anything more than a cosmetic box-ticking exercise the Labour-NZ First government needs to be prepared to demand real, dramatic changes or walk away.

If they aren’t, they are expecting us to be complicit in authorising their u-turn on a deal they previously said they wouldn’t ratify. And we are not about to do that.

Don Brash and other white, male conservatives speaking in the mainstream media, dislike the sound of te reo on the radio, even during the annual Maori Language Week, celebrating a national and international treasure for just seven days a year. Just like many of the birds whose calls ring out on RNZ National’s Morning Report, (not rejected by Don Brash), Maori language is endemic to this country, found nowhere else and is being brought back from the brink of extinction.

But interviewed by Kim Hill on RNZ on Saturday 1 December, Dr Brash says the sound of te reo on Morning Report profoundly irritates him, and he’s sick of the language being rammed down his throat. People are ‘having te reo foisted upon them’, and ‘people who don’t understand it, shouldn’t have to listen to it’. Kim Hill correctly pointed out that the same could be said about the financial reports, often not understood; or for me, sports updates with obscure rules and scoring protocols that I have no idea of, but hope to learn through exposure. Instead of the dumbing down of diversity that occurs through commercial radio, the public sector broadcasting of our indigenous language offers the opportunity to learn more, and widen our horizons, to keep something precious alive, to build on national and Maori culture and identity, to add more to our personal lexicons and range of expressions. Public celebrations of te reo offer valuable links to the past and a distinctive cosmology and way of describing the world.

Mr Brash however, complained that Maori language doesn’t have economic value or utility, and displaces more important learning in schools. He bemoans the fact that it’s taught in kindergartens and schools even when there are ‘no brown faces’ for miles, as if our national language should only apply to people with brown skin.

But Dr Brash has different ideas of what it means to be a New Zealander, and what are things of value, than many other New Zealanders. Fortunately, according to successive NZ Attitude Surveys, over time there’s increasing support for te reo use in public life, and growing agreement that it can be a beautiful thing to listen to. There are indications of a growing majority of kiwis supporting the use of te reo though they may be a somewhat passive force – they don’t so much make the headlines or the airwaves as provocateurs like Don Brash, though his interview with Kim Hill makes many of us wonder why he gets any air time at all.

Don Brash and others speak with irreverence, disrespect, disregard and even ignorance of the Charter of RNZ authorising the use of te reo, the Treaty of Waitangi guaranteeing tino rangatiratanga – self determination for Maori, UN Human Rights, and rights of the Child clauses recognising the importance of expression in indigenous tongues. Brash et al show closed mindedness, bigotry, a hangover of colonial attitudes, and inconsistent logic in their intolerance of the use of our native language. Brash said he ‘doesn’t like it and can’t understand it’ so it shouldn’t be used on a public broadcasting station, but he is ok about some words where they enhance English by offering broader meanings or are already well known. He has no humility in thinking standards of language use should be determined by the existing words he already knows, as if the limits of his knowledge should be arbiter of language overall.

Don Brash also overlooked the historical and contemporary diversity, and complexity of New Zealand, saying ‘New Zealand values are British values’, and that a lot of socio-economic deprivation among Maori is because they ‘don’t speak English properly’.

It’s unfortunately true that a high number of people in prison, are illiterate, and sometimes not fluent in written and spoken English. It’s a fact of life, everywhere that power in society is partly secured through the tyranny of the articulate. Whoever controls the rules of engagement, the language and codes used, the verbal and written system of exchange, includes some sectors of society, and excludes others. Don Brash says English is ‘a passport to access and understanding around the world’. Ultimately the dominant language in society can be a tool of colonialism and oppression, an instrument of power, and that’s a prerogative that people like Don Brash seek to preserve. His is a world view that says ‘speak my language or stay silent for your words otherwise have no value’.

But how well does English serve us, when indigenous people are marginalised and alienated from the system because it’s not their ‘first language’. How well does English serve us when ‘failure to engage’ increases the likelihood of prison. Don Brash says all New Zealanders should have equal political rights, but that idea fails at the first hurdle when access to the tools of discourse that recognise those political rights are denied to some and advantage others. English language serves those best who already speak it, and Don Brash et al, deny alternatives as legitimate medium of communication in our bi-cultural national setting.

As Kim Hill, interviewing Don Brash, observed, Maori had to listen to and learn English at the mercy of the colonising British forces, and by opposing the use of te reo by our state broadcaster, Don Brash and people like him seek to continue that linguistic imperialism, control and oppression. 328,000,000 people around the world are native English language speakers, and an estimated billion more are learning it as a second language. English spoken around the world as the linguistic currency of communication and commerce, (“Globish”), is not under threat, but indigenous languages are, and if we can’t celebrate and promote actual endangered languages in the specific countries where they are originally found, then where?

Don Brash’s Hobson’s Pledge lobby group, proposes ‘an end to Maori privilege’ though there’s little evidence of ‘Maori privilege’ in structures or outcomes for our indigenous people. They’re over-represented in negative social, economic and health indicators, though Don Brash makes out as if that’s because they can’t speak English properly, rather than from persistent, structural economic inequalities symptomatic of colonialism, as much as a personal ‘failure to learn’. Don Brash assumes the right to object to the public celebration of our country’s ‘mother tongue’ ‘because he doesn’t like it’ (he could just turn off the radio) and exposes himself as a relic of our colonial past with no place in a tolerant and diverse future that celebrates its indigenous treasures.

“This is a government that said it would be more transparent and more open. The document is clearly there somewhere, it must be important because it’s 38 pages and it’s come out of the agreement – people deserve to see it.

It sounds like there might be quite a lot more in this other piece of paper. If it’s at the core of how the Government’s going to run, it’s in the public interest.”

“By any international standard the last government was open and transparent, and this government, as with many other things, has expressed these high-minded intentions and then fails to follow through.”

Former Dear Leader, “Sir” John Key was brazenly open only in one respect of the OIA. He openly conceded that his administration regularly and willfully delayed releasing OIA requested information for purely political purposes;

.

“Sometimes we wait the 20 days because, in the end, Government might take the view that’s in our best interest to do that.”

.

To which Chief Ombudsman, Dame Beverley Wakem, responded by reminding Key and his cronies colleagues they were were not permitted to flout the OIA legislation by deliberately delaying up to the twenty-day deadline;

“It’s pretty clear. It couldn’t be much clearer than that… As soon as you have made a decision as to whether you’re going to respond to the request or how you’re going to respond to it, you ought to convey that.”

Who can forget National’s obstruction and prevarication – including contradictorystatements – over the SAS-led attack on two villages in the Tirgiran Valley in 2010 which caused fifteen injuries and the tragic deaths of six innocent Afghan civilians, including a young child;

Transport Minister Simon Bridges has been caught trying to block an official information request for details about a proposed new $50 million Auckland railway line.

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters tabled an email trail in Parliament yesterday showing that Mr Bridges’ office repeatedly urged KiwiRail last week not to release a business case on Auckland’s proposed third main railway track.

Initially, his officials opposed the document being released, saying it was part of an unsuccessful budget bid, but were told by KiwiRail on Thursday that the law was clear it should be released.

After consulting its legal team, KiwiRail told Mr Bridge’s office it would struggle to justify not releasing it.

But on Friday Mr Bridges’ office again urged KiwiRail not to release the business plan.

This time it used a scatter-gun approach – arguing the report was only a draft, was on a misleading template and that its proposed release was making them “extremely uncomfortable”.

Writer Harriet Gale…

[…]

… said KiwiRail made it clear the business case did not need to be kept secret and that the minister’s behaviour was worrying.

“It’s so important that we get this Act flowing better than it has been and it hasn’t necessarily flowed that well.

And that’s why I’ve used this as an opportunity to exhort the Prime Minister to help me and support me in getting the roles crystal clear.

We are coming down increasingly heavier where we see instances where the Act is not being compiled with – and in some cases, where it’s been flouted.

I think there’s an understanding that we mean business.”

Hardly the hallmarks of an “open and transparent” government when a Minister’s “office” is prepared to conspire to break the law by circumventing the Official Information Act. Also not helped when the ombudsman’s office has to write a scathing letter to the Prime Minister demanding they obey the law.

As if to underscore National’s mania for secrecy, in 2011/12, New Zealand’s ranking in media freedom by Reporters Without Borders fell from eighth place in 2010, to thirteenth, in the world.

The report did not say what was behind the fall – but it comes after a year in which newsrooms were searched by police, the New Zealand Herald was temporarily banned from the parliamentary press gallery and a proposed new law sought to give police greater powers to enter newsrooms.

Another story by Fairfax media’s Susan Edmunds, in May this year, also reported on New Zealand’s fall in World Press Freedom Index, citing Government secrecy;

The report said journalists were struggling with the Official Information Act, which gives government agencies long periods of time to respond to requests. Sometimes journalists were asked to pay for information.

“In August 2016, the government revealed a grim future for whistleblowers, announcing a bill that would criminalise leaking government information to the media and would dramatically increase the surveillance powers of the intelligence services. Journalists, bloggers, and civil society representatives would be among the potential targets of the proposed law, which could be adopted in 2017.”

Catherine Strong, from Massey University’s School of Communication, Journalism and Marketing, said;

“Our lower standing is due to the growing list of government agencies trying to hide information by thwarting the Official Information Act, and these agencies are ruining our reputation.”

What is even more grimly ironic is that having been thrown out of office, National persists in refusing to disclose information to the public.

Remember that National Party leader, Bill English, recently demanded;

“This is a government that said it would be more transparent and more open. The document is clearly there somewhere, it must be important because it’s 38 pages and it’s come out of the agreement – people deserve to see it.

It sounds like there might be quite a lot more in this other piece of paper. If it’s at the core of how the Government’s going to run, it’s in the public interest.”

On at least two occassions, Ms Ferguson asked Bill English if he would be releasing the text of coalitions negotiations with NZ First. English first replied;

@1:57

“Well again, I’m not going to be discussing that. It was part of the negotiations and New Zealand First actually required, rightly, confidentiality about those negotiations.”

When pressed, English was adamant that there would be no public disclosure;

@2:28

“I’m honour bound to stick with the confidentiality agreement. As are the other parties.”

Note English’s reference to “the other parties“.

That would be Labour. No one else was in the room with Peters and NZ First. So when it suited English, he was more than willing to point to “the other parties” to validate his refusal to release National’s own coalition discussion papers.

A month later, on 28 November, TVNZ’s talented Jack Tame interviewed Bill English on Breakfast TV. After English repeated his demands that Labour publish all coalition documents, Tame pointed out the apparent hypocrisy of demanding Labour make public their coalition papers whilst English refused to disclose National’s;

@1:13

TAME: “So are you prepared to release what your coalition negotiations with NZ First if the government does the same?”

ENGLISH: “Well, look, I don’t know if it’s a record of negotiations. We conducted ours under a confidentiality agreement. That was very clear right at the start.“

So according to English, National operated under a “confidentiality agreement“. He failed to explain how that differed from Labour’s confidentiality agreement with NZ First. As English insisted on 19 October, Labour was “honour bound to stick with the[ir] confidentiality agreement.”

Kudos to Jack Tame for being the only journalist (to my knowledge) to recognise and point out English’s double standard on this issue.

English’s refusal to come clean with the New Zealand public whilst demanding “transparency and openess” from Labour is a stark reminder of National’s toxic track record of paranoia, secrecy, and do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do arrogance. Every time English or one of his National Party parliamentary colleagues opens their mouths, we are reminded of their own hypocrisy.

They are political charlatans not to be trusted.

For the first time in our political history, it has become the role of the Government to hold the Opposition to account.

.

And now…

Introducing the first (but not the last!) Paula Bennett Award for Hypocrisy. Named for the National party politician who used the Training Incentive Allowance to gain a free, tax-payer funded university education when she was a young mother on the domestic purposes benefit. Later, in 2009, as Minister for Social Welfare, one of her first actions was to scrap that Allowance, thereby denying other solo-parents the same opportunity for advancing their lives.

The first Award goes to Bill English, for saying one thing and doing another. Congratulations, Mr English!

.

.

Acknowledgement

My thanks to a Radio NZ producer for locating specific audio that provided much-needed information for the completion of this story. I am indebted for the significant time and effort it took to assist me on this project.

TO ACCUSE POLITICIANS of being part of a “tax and spend” government is just another way of calling them social-democrats. By the same token, politicians who explicitly renounce the policies of tax and spend are signalling that they are anything but social-democrats. What, then, should we make of Grant Robertson’s speech to the ANZ Business Breakfast of Friday, 1 December 2017? The short answer is: if Finance Minister Robertson is a social-democrat, then he’s not a very good one.

Let’s begin with the most positive paragraph of his address to the assembled business leaders. Unfortunately, it’s not his. Robertson is merely quoting the core objectives of the Labour-NZ First- Green Government’s “common mission statement”:

“Together, we will work to provide New Zealand with a transformational government, committed to resolving the greatest long-term challenges for the country, including sustainable economic development, increased exports and decent jobs paying higher wages, a healthy environment, a fair society and good government. We will reduce inequality and poverty and improve the well-being of all New Zealanders and the environment we live in.”

There is no avoiding the radicalism of this declaration. “Transformational government” is what happens when the old ways of doing things are jettisoned in favour of news ways of managing a nation’s economy and society. The 1984-1990 Labour government of David Lange and Roger Douglas was unequivocally transformational. It cast aside the political, economic and social assumptions of the previous fifty years of New Zealand history in favour of a market-led society in which taxing and spending would be relentlessly “downsized”.

Significantly, the current Labour-NZ First-Green Government has, in large measure, come into being because just over half the New Zealand electorate was determined to bring an end to and, if possible, reverse, that downsizing.

Unfortunately, it just isn’t possible – on the basis of Robertson’s address to the ANZ Business Breakfast – to see how that can happen. The Finance Minister makes it very clear that the Ardern Government (its promises to bring about “Transformational” change notwithstanding) is absolutely determined to offer “responsible fiscal and economic management”.

In case his audience was in any doubt as to what this entailed, Robertson spelled out Labour’s “Budget Responsibility Rules”:

“To recap, this means that we will deliver a sustainable operating surplus each year unless there is a significant disaster or major economic shock or crisis. We will ensure that government spending as a proportion of the economy won’t rise above the recent historical average of 30% of GDP. We will reduce net core Crown debt to 20% of GDP within five years of taking office.”

It’s important to identify these commitments for what they truly are: a fiscal and economic straightjacket, whose primary effect will be to render the Labour-NZ First-Green Government’s “transformational” promises incapable of fulfilment.

Robertson’s Budget Responsibility Rules will achieve this result all on their own. Throw in Labour’s election campaign commitment to leave income and company taxes unchanged for three years, and what New Zealanders are faced with is thirty-six months of “Austerity-Lite”. Which isn’t quite the “transformation” New Zealanders had in mind when they accepted Jacinda’s invitation to “Let’s Do This”.

Somehow, Robertson’s rigid adherence to “responsible fiscal and economic management” will have to be overcome. Failure to reclaim the ability to tax and spend, or, to put it in less tendentious language: the ability to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor while accelerating the nation’s infrastructural development in ways that both reduce social inequality and expand individual opportunity; can only result in the Labour-NZ First-Green Government being thrown out on its ear in 2020.

Most of all, the Labour caucus needs to be weaned-off the self-denying-ordinances of neoliberalism. The whole history of our democracy has been about the determination of ordinary people to claim the same rights and privileges that King John’s barons acquired in Magna Carta. Namely, that before the King can tax them, he must first obtain their consent. In other words, determining the quantum and purpose of revenue gathering is the people’s prerogative. Winning control of the Treasury Benches becomes meaningless if the winners then refuse to exercise their right to raise revenue and spend it as they see fit.

If this is, in truth, to be a radical, transformational government, then perhaps its parliamentary majority should consider delivering a small demonstration of radical, transformational politics. All the Labour, NZ First and Green MPs outside Cabinet could agree to meet as a single entity and demand that the “Red October” appendix to the Coalition Agreement be made available for discussion and debate. This revolutionary “Common Mission Committee” could then communicate to Finance Minister Robertson which of the many promises agreed to by Labour were to be financed and implemented. If he refused, a new Finance Minister could be suggested.

Fanciful? Of course, it is! Not least because the Executive could easily thwart such a rebellion by entering into a grand coalition with the National Party. Would that cause the Labour Party to self-destruct? Probably. But wouldn’t that be a more honest outcome than forever putting up with governments run by unelected neoliberal civil servants?

A Labour Party that refuses to tax and spend really should call itself something else.

Yesterday I wrote to Trade Minister David Parker asking him to intervene urgently over the sudden and bizarre de-registration of representatives of prominent NGOs who had been accredited to attend the World Trade Organization ministerial conference from 10 to 13 December in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Parker is one of four vice-chairs of the eleventh WTO ministerial conference (MC11). To his credit he moved immediately. Vitalis Vangelis, the deputy head of MFAT responsible for these issues emailed back that:

The Minister has asked me to underline to you that we absolutely share your concern that this is a very troubling development. The Minister has also told me to formally and urgently instruct our WTO Mission in Geneva to take this up as a priority with the WTO Secretariat, including to clarify what has happened – and quickly. A Formal Message (ie an instruction to the Mission) is being sent tonight to that effect.

For more background, let’s have a closer look, Lori Wallach from US Public Citizen explains the context …

As if the WTO was not already in a legitimacy crisis, 40 non-governmental organizations were just abruptly notified that their accreditation to attend the WTO ministerial starting in ten days has been revoked.

Yup, literally on the anniversary of the WTO Seattle meltdown – 11/30!

The WTO Secretariat began warning people not to travel to Argentina as they will be sent home. Those banned include representatives from global union confederations, Friends of the Earth, and development think tanks – literally organizations and individuals who have attended every WTO ministerial since the WTO was launched… It is a bizarre list of 60 people and 20 groups from all over the world.

The WTO Secretariat says that they have warned Argentina, whose government is behind these bans, that this move will cause serious harm to the WTO’s legitimacy. Argentina won’t budge, so now the leading NGO network focused on WTO is calling for the WTO Director General to move the ministerial, which is planned for Dec 10-13 to WTO HQ in Geneva.

With Argentina refusing to budge, now the WTO DG and member states will have to decide if the ministerial proceeds in Buenos Aries or gets relocated/postponed…

Deborah James, who coordinates the Our World Is Not For Sale network, whose members were mainly targeted in the blacklist, sent out the following call to action:

Argentine Government Revokes World Trade Organization’s Accreditation of Key Civil Society Organizations, Just Days before Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires

Groups Call on Argentine Government to Rescind Disaccreditation, Call on WTO Director General Roberto Azevêdo and WTO General Council Not to Hold Ministerial in Argentina Unless Decision is Reversed

Washington, DC ― In an unprecedented action, the Argentine government has revoked the accreditation of 63 civil society experts ― trade unionists, development advocates, digital rights activists, environmentalists, and others ― just days before the 11th Ministerial meeting of the WTO (MC11) in Buenos Aires, advising the WTO that the experts will not be allowed in the country to participate in the meeting. The majority of the rejected organizations work together through the global Our World Is Not for Sale (OWINFS) network.

Civil society delegates from the following countries and organizations, many of whom have attended multiple WTO Ministerial meetings in the past, were sent a note from the WTO Secretariat on November 29 notifying them that the Argentine government had denied the accreditation already issued by the WTO: Argentina (Instituto del Mundo del Trabajo, Fundación Grupo Efecto Positivo, and Sociedad de Economía Crítica), Belgium (11.11.11), Brazil (Brazilian Network for People’s Integration, REBRIP), Chile (Derechos Digitales), Finland (Siemenpuu), Indonesia (Institute for National and Democracy Studies), Netherlands (Transnational Institute), the Philippines (People Over Profit) and the UK (Global Justice Now!), as well as international organizations including UNI global union (based in Switzerland) and UNI Americas (based in Uruguay) and Friends of the Earth International. A full list is available upon request. It has not go unnoticed that of the total of 20 organizations that have been banned, only two are from corporations, while the overwhelming number of corporate representatives will be allowed in.

Today, the groups sent a letter (bit.ly/2kc9RGO) calling on the Argentine government to reverse the bans, and on the Director General and the WTO membership not to hold the meeting in Argentina unless the participation of the groups is re-instated.

The standard agreement between international organizations and the host country of an international conference provides for accreditation, visas, and entry to all those the international organization accredits ― diplomats, media, non-governmental organizations, etcetera. The agreement has a provision for the host, only on exceptional security considerations, to refuse entry to a person. But based on the experience of the more than 250 members of OWINFS who have attended international meetings of the WTO, the United Nations, and other fora, hosts have never denied entry, except for at most, one or two specific persons, with at least some justification provided. Previous WTO Ministerial meetings in Singapore, the United States, Qatar, Mexico, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Indonesia, and Kenya did not see similar such repression. “We have participated in many previous Ministerial meetings without any problems, but now our entire four-person delegation has had their accreditation revoked – in spite of the fact that we have been engaging our government on WTO for years, and have non-refundable tickets and hotel reservations,” said Nick Dearden of Global Justice Now!

By offering to host the Conference, Argentina committed itself to ensure the access of all people, including delegates, staff and accredited NGOs that the WTO decides, according to its own procedures, should have access to it. If any host country starts taking decisions limiting access and does so arbitrarily and without having to explain any motives, not only is this conference’s integrity being attacked, but a key principle of international diplomacy is being violated. The WTO should not accept such a blatant violation of well-established international norms.

It is ironic that this occurred on the same day that Argentina is celebrating the transfer of the presidency of the G20 from Germany to Argentina. The banning of registered WTO delegates is an outrageous and worrying precedent, not just for the WTO meeting itself, and also for the G20 presidency of Argentina, but also for all future international meetings that are hosted by repressive governments.

IN POLITICS, as in war, the aggressor’s first strike is almost always directed against the defender’s weakest point. That being the case, the National Opposition has clearly identified the Ardern Government’s lacklustre political management skills as its primary target. Their secondary target, equally clearly, is the Greens. This should be the cause of considerable angst on the Government’s part. The Labour-NZ First Coalition’s political management skills will improve with practice. Improving the Greens political skills is a much taller order!

The Greens face a number of serious problems at the moment, not the least of which is the extremely heavy workloads being borne by the most experienced members of their tiny caucus. James Shaw, Julie-Anne Genter and Eugenie Sage, as Ministers Outside of Cabinet, have their hands full just bringing themselves up-to-speed with their portfolios. Of the remaining five Green MPs: one is an Under-Secretary; one the Party Whip; another is manoeuvring to become the next Female Co-Leader; and the remaining two are complete newbies.

Unsurprisingly, it was one of the latter, Golriz Ghahraman, who this week found herself in the cross-hairs of David Farrar and Phil Quin, two of New Zealand’s most deadly political snipers.

Both men’s attention had been drawn to what can only be described as the unnecessary grandiloquence of Ghahraman’s CV. Describing her fairly modest role in the massive bureaucracy of the International Criminal Court in terms that made her sound like Geoffrey Robertson and Amal Alamuddin Clooney all rolled into one, really was asking for, if not trouble, then most certainly some pretty close enemy scrutiny.

That Ghahraman was not well-placed to withstand such scrutiny, raises two obvious and important questions. Why did she draw attention to her participation in ICT trials without fully disclosing her potentially controversial roles in those trials? And, why didn’t the Green Party carry out the same sort of due diligence exercise on Ghahraman’s CV as Quin and Farrar? At the very least, these simple precautions would have allowed Ghahraman and her Green Party colleagues to anticipate precisely the sort of attacks that eventuated.

The obvious lesson which the National Party will have drawn from this incident is that the Green Party – or at least those responsible for its communications strategies – are in the grip of a conception of politics that places far too much emphasis on marketing and spin. Only the most inexperienced (and cynical) public relations flack could consider it “okay” to leave out of a politician’s most immediately accessible biography (the one on her own party’s website!) something as potentially explosive as the fact the she had served on the defence team of people accused of genocide and other, equally horrifying, crimes against humanity.

The incident will also have alerted National to the fact that the Greens have learned absolutely nothing from the parliamentary bullying meted-out to their colleague, the former Green MP, Keith Locke.

It was the Labour Party’s Opposition Research which dug out of the pages of Socialist Action, the Trotskyite newspaper which Locke edited for many years, a nugget of pure political gold. The Socialist Action League had been an enthusiastic early supporter of the Khmer Rouge – the revolutionary party led by Pol Pot which, in 1975, toppled the right-wing military government of Cambodia. As the editor of Socialist Action, Locke had written articles in support of the Pol Pot regime.

In vain did Locke attempt to explain to his parliamentary accusers that neither he nor the Socialist Action League were even slightly aware of the “politicide” unfolding on the killing fields of Pol Pot’s Cambodia when the offending articles were written. Unfortunately, John Pilger’s shocking revelations that the Khmer Rouge had murdered millions of Cambodians, rendered Locke’s after-the-fact explanations utterly ineffective. He had written in support of Pol Pot – and for many MPs that was enough to place him beyond the pale of political respectability.

The point of this cautionary tale, is that a political party – especially one which, like the Greens, attracts radicals and activists of all kinds – not only needs to keep its institutional memory alive, it needs to keep it kicking-in. The most important lesson to be drawn from Locke’s experience, is that political parties need to conduct exhaustive research into the backgrounds of all its candidates, so that areas of weakness and vulnerability can be identified early and, if possible, neutralised by preventive revelation.

It is supremely ironic that Ghahraman, Locke’s successor in the role of Green Spokesperson for Global Affairs, formed part of the ICC prosecution team bringing the mass murderers of the Khmer Rouge to justice. Ironic, too, that she, like Locke, has seen her credibility in the Global Affairs role severely damaged by a failure to anticipate how the Greens’ enemies, however unfairly, might turn the actions of her past, no matter how well intentioned, against her.

After Ghahraman’s ambush, Jacinda Ardern will be acutely aware that improving her government’s political management skills is not simply a matter of keeping her own Labour Party safe from political snipers, but that the job also entails teaching the Greens how to anticipate – and then dodge – their common enemy’s bullets.

Golriz Ghahraman has been under attack from right-wing pundits on two fronts.

Firstly, they criticise her participation, as a lawyer, in defence teams during war crimes trials at the International Criminal Trials for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. They don’t seem to be so critical of her role as Assistant Co-Prosecutor at the Khmer Rouge Tribunal.

Secondly, they accuse Golriz of being less than forthcoming about her defence role. This is patently not true. She has spoken up and down the country to journalists and at public engagements about her defence role, including when an election candidate and since becoming a Green MP. NZ Herald journalist Kirsty Johnson tweeted in her defence: “To clear things up: I interviewed @golrizghahraman about six weeks before the election, we openly discussed her time in Rwanda as a defence intern. It (like much of her story) didn’t make my final story due to space.” Vice journalist Tess McClure published a transcript of an October interview where Golriz talked about her defence role, and why she was proud of it. Golriz told Vice how important a strong defence for a fair process “because how we treat the weakest links or the worst people in our society actually does define us. Having that fair process after a war has happened really will define the kind of society that comes out of it. So you know, to me, it is really important to have a strong defence in those courts, so that the verdicts were safe, and we left a model of justice for the community.”

Also, Golriz’s LinkedIn CV, accessable to over a million New Zealand LinkedIn members, has for some time detailed both her defence and prosecution roles on the International Tribunals.

Ignoring all the evidence of Golriz’s openness her critics fell back on three words in one sentence on the Green website, which were not written by Golriz. The sentence read: “Golriz lived and worked in Africa, the Hague and Cambodia, putting on trial world leaders for abusing their power.” It is confusing, even if you can argue that the UN-contracted defence teams were part of the UN Tribunal “putting on trial” the accused. So the website sentence has been changed to read: “Golriz worked for United Nations Tribunals as part of both defence (Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia) and prosecution (Cambodia) teams.”

In summary, Golriz has never hidden her defence role in the Rwanda and former Yugoslavia Tribunals. She has spoken about those experiences many times, and put them on her LinkedIn CV. It has been good to see the legal experts such as Andrew Geddes and so many progressive people coming to her defence.

The 2013 National Govt appointee as Chair of the Waikato DHB, former Nat MP Bob Simcock, finally read the tea leaves on the evening of 28thNovember and fell on his sword – sending his resignation letter to Health Minister David Clark, who gracefully (and probably gratefully) accepted it, stating it was the ‘right thing’ for Simcock to do.

As suggested in The Daily Blog only a couple of days ago, Simcock’s continuing presence as the supposed ‘leader’ of one of the largest DHB’s ($1.4B annual turnover) was a major impediment to the organisation’s recovery from the excesses of rip-off merchant Nigel Murray, the former CEO outed, and ousted, six weeks ago, after blowing $218,000 of taxpayers’ money on wine, women and travel.

Murray, who’d had a chequered career as CEO at Southland DHB and at Fraser Health in Canada, had been brought in on Simcock’s urging, despite several warnings provided to him by doctors’ unions and local MP Sue Moroney. As soon as he got his feet under the table Murray (already on an annual $560,000 salary) began spending up large on expenses, that were supposed to be authorised and overseen by Simcock – but rarely were.

His travel was also excessive; in the last of his three years at the DHB, the dodgy character was actually away from the organisation for more than half of the year, and not all conferences he was booked for were actually attended by him.

An internal legal investigation, which was stopped, unfinished, when Murray abruptly resigned, was followed by a damning Audit NZ report, and then a currently under-way State Services Commission investigation, ordered by the Health Minister.

Simcock’s delays in calling Murray to task, delays in informing fellow Board members about the problems, and the slow nature of the various enquiries into Murray made his position completely untenable some months ago. The only people who didn’t accept this were Simcock himself, and some of the Board members present throughout the sorry saga.

At least two Board members – myself and Maryanne Gill – publicly refused to state they had confidence in Simcock as Chair (despite his self-serving claim otherwise), and several health and other organisations publicly called for his resignation, as I and the NZ Herald editorial did, along with many members of the public.

A front-page NZ Herald lead article on 28th November, along with several Radio NZ bulletins, stating the Serious Fraud Office was now ‘enquiring’ into the Murray expenses saga was clearly the last straw for the Government, who obviously told Simcock that day to jump, or he would be unceremoniously thrown off the cliff – which he did a few hours later.

Dave Macpherson is TDB’s mental health blogger. He became a Waikato DHB member after his son died from mental health incompetence.

The rebranded TPPA-11 is a high stakes gamble for Labour (I refuse to call it the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement on Trans-Pacific Partnership – there is nothing progressive about it!).

Jacinda Ardern admitted as much when she recorded a propaganda video, hailing the changes she says Labour won, while she was still en route back from Vietnam. She and David Parker know their claims won’t stand up to scrutiny. So they did what the Nats did after the old TPPA was agreed and frantically spun their line to a largely gullible media (with a few exceptions) and a support base who desperately want to believe.

What happens now? We are told there are four country-specific issues the eleven have yet to reach consensus on. These involve changes to schedules for Malaysia on State-owned enterprises, Brunei on investment for coal, and Vietnam on trade sanctions for certain products. These are portrayed as solvable – presumably because the countries have limited bargaining power. The fourth, a ‘cultural exception’ sought by Canada, is seen as more problematic. The Trudeau government has gone back home to consult on a number of issues, and they are not only about culture.

The TPPA-11 ministers are expected to meet when they are all in Buenos Aires, Argentina from 10-13 December for the WTO ministerial conference.

The worst-case scenario is being pushed by Japan, which is leading the charge to get the deal signed and into force. The Abe government wants to host the signing in February 2018 or in early Spring (March/April). Mexico and Malaysia have elections mid-2018 and Japan fears that new governments might walk away.

Canada will doubtless be given some kind of ultimatum in Argentina. But they have made it clear that domestic political priorities have to be addressed. Moreover, what Canada (and Mexico) accept in the TPPA-11 will flow over to the Nafta renegotiation with Trump. Friends in US say Nafta’s likely to come to a head in March or April, so there may not be anything agreed in TPPA-11 before then, if at all.

Would the others really kick Canada out? It’s the second largest remaining country in the TPPA-11 after Japan. Despite the tough talk, it would look really bad to lose another big player, maybe two if Mexico went too. The remaining 10 might bluster that this allows them to bring others in, such as South Korea, Philippines, Colombia. But most of them have FTAs with those countries anyway.

If Canada becomes a martyr, governments like ours, would be really exposed. The opposition in Australia could use Canada as a precedent. The Australian Labor Party, Greens and the Nick Xenaphon team are still saying they won’t support it through the Senate.

From our end, the time line is therefore very uncertain. It could happen very quickly or drag on interminably. We have no way to predict. So we can’t be complacent. The longer it stays off the political radar without people challenging the reality that it’s the old deal in drag, the easier it will be for the government spin machine to win by default if it is suddenly finalised.

David Parker has promised to hold consultations after the TPPA-11 has been agreed and before it is signed. That could be at very short notice and in a very short window, unless people intensify the pressure on the government to follow Canada’s lead and go back to the table.

I know that people need more accurate information and analysis if they are to hold the feet of both Labour and New Zealand First to the fire. I have been working on that, starting by debunking what the government said about investment and ISDS. You can read a blog about that later in the week.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/11/28/the-latest-on-resisting-the-tppa/feed/20National’s $11.7 billion hole is right where they left ithttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/11/28/nationals-11-7-billion-hole-is-right-where-they-left-it/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/11/28/nationals-11-7-billion-hole-is-right-where-they-left-it/#commentsMon, 27 Nov 2017 18:11:52 +0000https://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=94644.

The claim of an $11.7 “fiscal hole” became a dominating irritant throughout the election campaign, even though in large part it failed simply because no one else (except Bill English) agreed that it existed. TV3’s “Newshub” even created this now-famous, handy, infograph to illustrate the fact that Joyce and English were effectively on their own;

.

.

The claim has been largely forgotten, except when the Left need a handy reminder of right-wing duplicity to throw at National/ACT trolls – just to wipe any smirk of entitlement from their silver-spoon-fed faces.

Joyce seems curiously very sure of himself on the existence of the “hole”;

“Unfortunately, sadly, I think it looks like over time I will be proven correct. I genuinely don’t take any joy out of that because actually all that says is that the new Government is going to spend more than it said to meet its promises, and that’s because it didn’t allow enough money for other things

The report, by Fairfax journalist Rachel Thomas, revealed a massive shortfall in spending on medicines alone;

Cancer patients say they are sick of paying for their own survival after an independent report revealed a $682 million “hole” in government funding for lifesaving medicines.

[…]

The $682m figure in Wednesday’s report from the New Zealand Institution for Economic Research (NZIER) is the amount it says would be needed to restore the community pharmaceuticals budget to 2007 levels.

In real terms, Budget spending for prescription medicines, vaccines, haemophilia treatments, nicotine replacement, and cancer medicines – sometimes administered in hospitals – dropped from 6.2 per cent in 2007 to 3.6 per cent in 2018, according to the report.

Now granted that Medicines New Zealand is a “drug lobby group” – but the NZIER which analysed the problem also revealed their methodology;

The NZIER report was commissioned by Medicines New Zealand, a drug lobby group, and collated from Pharmac annual reports and Official Information Act requests.

When former Health Minister, Jonathan Coleman, was asked to explain the massive $682 million hole in the medicines budget, his reply was;

Since 2007, almost 900,000 Kiwis had received 426 new and widened-access medicines. “It’s important to note that … Medicines NZ [has] a direct interest in increased Pharmac spending.”

Which is hardly surprising given that English’s miraculous budget surpluses appear to have been made at the expense of under-funding for services such as healthcare – including mental health – throughout the country.

Joyce’s claim was scrutinised by economists, commentators, and even a right-wing think-tank and lobby group – and declared to be unsusubstantiated by any known facts. Only Joyce, supported by his leader Bill English, maintained the existence of a purported “hole”.

On 23 November, Fairfax reported findings by the NZIER that PHARMAC’s medicines budget was underfunded by a whopping $682 million. (“$682m ‘hole’ in medicine budget”). When asked to respond, former National Health Minister Coleman criticised those that commissioned the report – Medicines NZ, a pharmaceutical lobby group – but in no way disputed the figures.

In essence, PHARMAC’s funding budget suffered a savage cut from 6.2% in 2007 to 3.6% in 2018 – the equivalent of $682 million in vital medicines.

No wonder Joyce was so confident that a fiscal “hole” existed where none could see one.

Joyce knew precisely that the $11.7 billion “hole” was of National’s own making; a legacy “gifted” to the incoming Coalition government, and a ticking fiscal time bomb waiting to detonate as incoming Finance Minister, Grant Robertson, uncovered further hidden funding shocks.

ONE OF THE MOST MEMORABLE aspects of A Very British Coup, is the left-wing prime minister’s commitment to open government. Thirty years may have passed since the television adaptation of Chris Mullin’s novel was broadcast on Britain’s Channel 4, but with a left-wing pacifist Leader of the Opposition poised to become the UK’s next prime minister, the series has taken on a surprisingly contemporary feel. Certainly, the question of how much of the day-to-day business of government should remain hidden from public view has become a very live issue in New Zealand.

Much has been made of the National Party Opposition’s “spamming” of the new Labour-NZ First-Green government. The thousands of written parliamentary questions piling-up in Ministers’ offices have been decried as a cheap political stunt by the Government’s supporters, but other commentators, determined to uphold the principles of government accountability and transparency have defended the Opposition’s actions.

When A Very British Coup first screened here, back in the late 1980s, I very quickly came to think of it as a wonderful primer in how a genuinely left-wing Labour government should behave. Nowhere was the radicalism of the fictional British PM, Harry Perkins, more vividly on display than in the way he treated his government’s “official information”.

Rather than force political journalists and Opposition MPs to file endless OIA requests and ask endless parliamentary questions, Harry simply announced that what he saw, they would see, also. Everything, from his daily appointments schedule, to Cabinet briefing papers and departmental reports, would be released to the news media, and the public, immediately and without distinction. Government secrecy would become a thing of the past.

Chris Mullin (a British Labour Party MP, as well as a thriller writer) was making a truly revolutionary point about political information.

The moment a government decides that some information is simply too sensitive, problematic and/or embarrassing to be shared with the voters, it is entering into a conspiracy against the public good. Why shouldn’t ordinary citizens know who Cabinet Ministers are meeting with – and the nature and content of their discussions? It is, after all, in their name that government decisions are made, and their money which pays for them. Surely, only a politician with something to hide would raise objections to a policy of full and immediate disclosure?

Civil servants and lobbyists would, of course, object that by exposing their interventions to public scrutiny such a government would very quickly end up being told only those things that their advisers would be happy to see on the front page of the NZ Herald. To which I would respond: “And what’s wrong with that?” If their advice is well-founded in fact and devoid of any hint of self-interest, then what possible objection could they have to the public being copied in? Surely, it would only be those offering tendentious, ideologically-driven advice to ministers, or appealing to them on their private clients’ behalf, who would find such a radical open government policy objectionable?

The old adage: “Information is Power”; imposes a real moral burden on democratic socialist politicians. If democracy is all about giving power to the people, then withholding information from them is, objectively, an act of deliberate disempowerment.

A radical open government policy, such as that adopted by Harry Perkins in A Very British Coup, offers something else to democratic socialist politicians: protection from themselves. Unable to hide their words and deeds from the public, deviating from their own principles and/or their party’s policies becomes much more difficult!

Harry Perkins, unlike Steve Maharey, could never quietly abandon a policy with the cynical observation that it was “just one of those things you say in Opposition and then forget about in Government”. His radical open government policy was, at once, a means of further empowering the people who elected him, and of making sure they were governed by decent and more honest politicians.

Many will have heard mainstream or social media chatter in the last few months about the ripoffs and rorts perpetrated by the rather unsavoury Nigel Murray, now former CEO of the Waikato DHB.

Murray spent three years upending the DHB’s organisational structure, pissing off the junior and senior doctors, and most union members in the organisation, minus the 15 months wasted gallivanting around the globe away from his job – at the cost to the taxpayer of $218,000. Given that this figure was on top of an almost $560,000 annual salary, the public have been justifiably angry at his profligacy.

Although Murray leapt off the cliff before he was pushed, in order to hide the full nature of his spending, it didn’t stop public airing of his $799 a night hotel rooms, his ‘accommodation’ of two mistresses on the public purse, or his non-attendance at international conferences the NZ health dollar funded him heavily to attend. Commendably, NZ Herald journo Natalie Akoorie has played a large and sustained part in airing Murray’s antics, unlike the local daily Waikato Times, which has been a combination of asleep at the wheel and rather too closely allied to DHB management.

Many projects under Murray have had dramatic cost blowouts, including a downtown Hamilton office block refurbishment, with no proper business case approved by the DHB Board, that leapt from $7.7M cost to $14.7M; and a ‘virtual’ or digital healthcare platform that appears to have doubled its original $8M estimate and more than halved its uptake at the same time.

How did all this happen, you ask? Where was the oversight? What was the Board doing (if anything)?

The answer lies in part with the political structure set up to govern each Board; every Board has four of its 11 members chosen by the Minister of Health, including the Chairs and Deputy Chairs. Only seven are elected on each Board.

DHB Boards are not set up to actually make any real decisions on the health spend in their areas; Health Ministers, through the Health Ministry, allocate almost all of a DHB’s Revenue, and mandate how much of it is to go into each area (eg GP’s/Primary healthcare, tertiary healthcare at the big hospitals, etc.). The Ministry sets targets for operations and procedures in every area, and there is very little room to move for local communities.

DHB Boards can only tinker round the edges of these targets and expenditure areas, and are essentially there as a piece of ‘democratic window-dressing’. The Government appoints men and women to the key positions that will be ‘safe pairs of hands’, who won’t rock the boat and will do the Government’s bidding. Having said that, some are more competent than others, and this is where the Waikato DHB story has a little more light shone on it than others.

For the Waikato DHB, the National Government appointed former senior National MP Bob Simcock as Chair of the Board some years ago. Simcock – once known as ‘Jenny Shipley’s bag-man’ when Shipley rolled PM Jim Bolger – had also been Mayor of Hamilton during the V8 debacle and massive overspend, and has been appointed to various company boards and other bodies – a true member of the local Nats’ old boys network.

In 2014, Simcock was instrumental in the Waikato DHB appointing the aforesaid Murray, who had previously been CEO at Southland DHB, leaving there under a cloud to take up the CEO post at Fraser Health, a large Canadian DHB-equivalent, before also leaving there under a cloud to come back to New Zealand. In Invercargill, Murray was outed as already working for Fraser Health before he left Southland DHB, while in Canada, he racked up $140,000 in expenses in just two years, and his organisation was under investigation when he left early to come to Hamilton.

Knowing of his dodgy history, both the senior doctors’ organisation and former Labour MP Sue Moroney personally and directly warned Simcock of the dangers in appointing Murray – before the appointment was made. Simcock claims Murray’s references were checked, but Blind Freddy could see the train wreck coming down the line – only Simcock and his Board couldn’t.

To make matters worse, Simcock – who, as in all DHB’s and most companies, is required to sign off all the CEO’s expenses, travel and conference attendance – failed to approve more than a small proportion of Murray’s expenses in advance of them happening, despite all the warnings about the guy. In one case Murray stayed in a private hotel in Hamilton for six months after arriving here (allegedly with someone who wasn’t his wife) when the normal period is one month maximum.

Every year, each DHB CEO is required to file an expenses return with the State Services Commission, which is a good monitoring tool – only Murray didn’t file one for either of the first two years, and Simcock, responsible for oversight of this, not only didn’t check this out, when he eventually found out six months later, he kept news of this from his fellow Board members for almost another six months.

The whole sordid tale of ripoffs and lack of governance is coming to light through legal and Audit NZ investigations, and another SSC investigation just starting.

But, from the public viewpoint we’ve had a rip-off artist as a CEO, and a Government-appointed Board Chair who didn’t have a clue what was going on, or if he did was too slack to do anything about it – BUT, has refused to fall on his sword, despite at least two Board members refusing to express confidence in him, as well as doctors’ organisations and many members of the public calling for him to go.

The real problem, is that Simcock’s refusal to clear out won’t allow those remaining to start looking forward, and to refocus on the healthcare needs of the region. There is a real risk that the Government could take the easy way out and sack the entire Board, in order to lance the boil, ensuring those within the Board who are trying to sort this mess out will go along with those complicit in creating the mess.

Dave Macpherson is TDB’s mental health blogger. He became a Waikato DHB member after his son died from mental health incompetence.

Now here’s a curious thing … right now the National Party is going absolutely hammer-and-tong attempting to attack the Labour Party’s Tax Working Group – for, among other things, the fact it’s set to be chaired by former Labour Finance Minister Sir Michael Cullen.

On the face of it, I suppose some might agree with the notion that appointing a well-respected linchpin of the previous Labour government might seem a *little* less than strictly impartial. But from where I’m sitting, Cullen’s record as Finance Minister [which, let’s remember, was sufficiently glowing that even *National* were singing his praises a few years ago – to the point of awarding him a Knighthood for “services to the state” in this role in 2012] probably means that the competency he brings to the role outweighs concerns he might be “partisan”.

And yet, such a potentially “bipartisan” approach from National is pretty inconsistent with their own previous record when it comes to Working Groups, Task Forces, and other such beasts of political-policy-oversight burden. I’ve literally lost count of the number of consultative bodies and even straight-up Inquiries that the National Party quite pointedly staffed the chairing of with their own people over the last nine years.
I mean, as an example of this – their placing of John Shewan at the head of the group convened to look into slash “dispel” the perception of New Zealand as a tax-haven, for instance, was quite directly a case of placing a fox in charge of a hen-house [Shewan’s private sector activities including quite a spate of tax-“consultancy” and linkages to a series of potentially dodgy international firms in this regard].

Or, worse, the series of appointments of [now Dame – guess why she got the gong, eh?] Paula Rebstock to head Inquiries into everything from Peter Dunne’s ‘alleged’ leaking of materials around the GCSB’s illegal conduct through to the ‘Leask’ affair concerning MFAT information being anonymously passed to the Labour Party.
In both of these above-cited cases, Rebstock basically managed to produce the “correct” outcome from the perspective of the Government of the day …. and was subsequently castigated by other authority-figures who wound up having to review her efforts for getting things wrong, or even presiding over outright illegal conduct.
Clearly, there is a bit of a risk when a Government appoints its own people to what’s supposed to be an impartial body – although I would respectfully contend that there’s quite a gulf of difference of both degree and kind between empowering a well-regarded former Finance Minister to preside over a taxation working group [which is, after all, an advisory organization set up entirely at the Government’s behest to provide potential detail and projections on its own policy] …. versus a Government ‘slotting in’ its own pugnaciously-construed “enforcer” to Inquiries into Government (mis)actions that are supposed to, by their very nature, be above the petty politics of the day.

As we can see … the results of National’s perfidy were for those aforementioned Inquiries to wind up repeatedly warred-over and iniquitously conducted bun-fights rather than august and impartially-regarded efforts at discerning the truth of important matters

I am sure there are a litany of other examples – but that’s just a few off the top of my head.

It appears at this point that the National Party knows they can’t meaningfully criticize the Tax Working Group on substance [after all – rightly or wrongly, the only thing we know at this stage about their prospective output are a list of the things the Labour Party have pre-emptively ruled *out* of consideration] … and so are instead resorting to that old favourite of theirs, going for the man – the personality – instead.

And, as is frequently the case where National is concerned, criticizing the hell out of Labour et co for doing something that, arguably, they themselves regularly and relentlessly engaged in when in Government.

Although I maintain as I said at the outset of this piece, that it is difficult indeed to draw a meaningful comparison between the appointment of Sir Michael Cullen to the chairmanship of this Tax Working Group, and any of the previously-cited instances of National staffing legal proceedings or advisory panels with its own bully-boys and flunkies.

After all … given Sir Michael Cullen literally wound up being knighted in no small part for his sound economic management as the previous Labour Government’s Finance Minister, it would appear rather unquestionable – even by National, who knighted him, one presumes – that when it comes to these sorts of matters, Cullen (still) has a meaningful and informed contribution to make.

The longer the Nats remain in Opposition, the faster their public support will erode. Post 2008, Labour’s polling continued to plummet, whereas National’s ascendancy continued to build on it electoral success…

[…]

The longer National stays in Opposition, the further it’s public support will fall. It is hard to imagine that it’s election night result of 44.4% will be maintained to the next election in 2020.

In short, the Nats risk growing irrelevancy the longer they stay out of government.

It’s taken faster than I thought possible, but the first post-election poll – from Roy Morgan – has the Labour-led coalition rising whilst National’s support is falling;

In November support for the newly elected Labour/NZ First/Greens Government was 54.5% (up 6% since early October) ahead of National/Act NZ on 41% (down 5.5%) with minor parties outside Parliament attracting the remaining 4.5% of support.

Support for Labour/NZ First is at 44.5% (up 7% since early October), a slight increase from their election result of 44.1% while coalition partners the Greens are on 10% (down 1%).

Support for National is at 40.5% (down 5.5%) and down 3.95% from their election result of 44.5% while their right-wing colleagues Act NZ are stuck unchanged on 0.5%.

Hence why National’s chief party strategist, shit-stirrer, and head-kicker – Steven Joyce has been so vocal lately. His on-going carping about the new government is a desperate attempt for his party to stay relevant.

The longer the Coalition has to implement it’s reforms and fix up thirty years of neo-liberal mis-management, the harder it will be for the Nats to offer themselves as a viable alternative in 2020 or 2023. Or 2026.

Who would vote for a party whose nine years in office saw nothing of any practical value except a cycleway (that failed to deliver promised 4,000 new jobs) and bloated house-values for a minority of middle class property-owners in Auckland and Wellington?

It made for grim watching and deserves to be re-broadcast at prime time.

It is against this back-drop that National’s strategists should understand one thing very clearly: people’s expectations over the last three decades have been low. The pressing social and economic problems we face have been accepted with a shrug from a sizeable chunk of the voting population.

It was presented for a generation that this was as good as it gets.

But if Labour, NZ First, and the Greens can prove that a better alternative exists – then watch National’s poll rating plummet even further. The Roy Morgan Poll gave us a hint of this;

Government Confidence increased substantially during November after New Zealand First chose to form Government with the Labour Party installing Jacinda Ardern as New Zealand’s new PM.

The Roy Morgan Government Confidence Rating jumped 15.5pts to 146.5pts in November (the highest for nearly eight years since January 2010 early in the reign of Prime Minister John Key) with 66.5% of NZ electors (up 8% from October) saying NZ is ‘heading in the right direction’ cf. 20% of NZ electors (down 7.5%) that say New Zealand is ‘heading in the wrong direction’.

The Nats are on borrowed time. Their relevancy will continue to diminish.

And it is when the Right have their backs against the wall that they will be most dangerous.

Labour, Green, and NZ First Ministers and MPs need to be on-guard at all times. Stay focused on what needs to be done.

The latest Roy Morgan poll must be sending shivers down the backs of the National Party hierarchy.

Not because support for the newly elected Labour-led coalition was up 6% to 54.5%, with National/ACT free-falling 5.5% on 41%.

But because the same poll revealed that “66.5% of NZ electors (up 8%) said NZ is heading in the right direction”.

This is a clear message from the people that they have had enough of a market-led, minimalist-government regime that has seen growing child poverty; widening income/wealth inequality; stagnating wages; corporates rorting the tax system; worsening housing affordability; growing homelessness with entire families living in garages or cars; degraded rivers; and a grossly under-funded health system.

National was quick of the mark cutting taxes in 2009 and 2010, for which they had to borrow from overseas to fund, despite assurances that would not happen.

But not so quick to address the critical problems that really matter to New Zealanders.

Hot on the heels of their support for the Bill of Rights for foreign multinationals (aka the TPPA) the new Labour-led government has appointed none other than former Labour Finance Minister Michael Cullen to head its tax working group.

Cullen will forever be remembered for his proud proclamation (in response to criticism from National) that during most of his tenure as Finance Minister (1999 – 2008) company profits increased at twice the rate of workers’ wages.

The effect of Cullen’s tenure as Finance Minister administering the economy for the wealthy (along with his fellow neo-liberal finance ministers Roger Douglas, Ruth Richardson and Bill English) was this Radio New Zealand report over the weekend which reported:

Statistics New Zealand data shows in the year to March, the country’s two million salary and wage earners received just under 49 percent of the nation’s income, compared to 59 percent in 1981.

The council said if workers were receiving the same return for their labour that was considered fair a generation ago, then, on average, they would be about $11,500 better off today.

The sickening result is seen everywhere in this deeply divided country with its rotten economic system.

New Zealand desperately needs to address poverty and inequality and under capitalism the only way to do it is through the tax system.

National’s political strategist and former minister, Steven Joyce responded with a predictable jerk-of-the-knee;

“Sir Michael is many things but a politically independent voice on taxation policy he is not. Let’s face it, he was Labour’s last Finance Minister and one of the key coalition negotiators for the Labour Party.”

Joyce’s reprehensible swipe at Cullen’s appointment was hypocritical for two reasons.

One of National’s worst instances of cronyism was the hugely wasteful, so-called “Rules Reduction Taskforce“, which produced it’s “loopy rules report”. Half the “Taskforce”, appointed by Paula Bennett in 2014, consisted of former National MPs such as Tau Henare, John Carter, and former party candidates Mark Thomas and Ian Tulloch. They were each paid $500 a day.

Eventually the “Taskforce” reported that many of the contentious bureaucratic regulations did not exist in reality. They were urban myths.

Thank you Steven Joyce for reminding us how National excels at cronyism.

-Frank Macskasy

[address and phone number supplied]

.

Further on the issue of the so-called “Rules Reduction Taskforce”, Green Party MP, Julie-Anne Genter, said at the time;

“We’re getting to that point where the National government is losing all perspective or sense of touch with reality – when they think it’s okay to pay their former MPs or candidates and donors to undertake what’s ostensibly some sort of taskforce work, it’s really just an exercise in PR and spin.”

But hold on just a moment. I’ve literally lost count of the number of consultative bodies and even straight-up *Inquiries* that the National Party *quite pointedly* staffed the chairing of with their own people, flunkies, and other such questionable appointments.

I mean, as an example of this – their placing of John Shewan at the head of the group convened to look into slash “dispel” the perception of New Zealand as a tax-haven, for instance, was quite directly a case of placing a fox in charge of a hen-house [Shewan’s private sector activities including quite a spate of tax-“consultancy” and linkages to a series of potentially dodgy international firms in this regard].

Or, worse, the series of appointments of [now Dame – guess why she got the gong, eh?] Paula Rebstock to head Inquiries into everything from Peter Dunne’s ‘alleged’ leaking of materials around the GCSB’s illegal conduct through to the ‘Leask’ affair concerning MFAT information being anonymously passed to the Labour Party.

Curwen continued to strip away National’s faux outrage;

Further, if I recall correctly, the previous National Government’s “2025 Taskforce” on pensions and the like was convened to be *chaired by* none other than arch-neoliberal [and former National Party Leader] Don Brash. I don’t seem to recall the National Party raising any issue with “politically tied” appointments to policy working-group style arrangements THEN…?

What’s different about Cullen on the Tax Working Group, I wonder…?

But when it came to cronyism mixed with commercial self interest, Judith Collins’ involvement in the Oravida milk company scandal was hard to top, as political commentator, Bryce Edwards put bluntly;

Justice Minister Judith Collins has revealed she had a dinner with the head of Oravida and a senior Chinese government official while in China last year and admits she was wrong not to disclose the dinner last week. Mrs Collins has been under pressure to explain her dealings with the milk company Oravida, where her husband is a director.

Perceptions of corruption, cronyism and conflicts of interest can be incredibly damaging to any government, and National will be very wary of a narrative developing that this administration is infected with political sleaze.

Nothing makes a government look more tired, out-of-touch, and arrogant than scandals that suggest governing politicians are ethically compromised and governing in the interests of the powerful rather than the public.

Judith Collins’ milk endorsement scandal is beginning to have a serious impact on the Government’s reputation. But unfortunately for National, there are a number of similar stories dogging it at the moment, and they all come on the back of previous allegations of cronyism related to the scandals over John Banks as well as the SkyCity convention centre procurement process.

The scandal over Judith Collins and her allegedly favourable treatment of the milk company that her husband helps run has allowed National’s opponents to make some strong attacks on the character of, not only the Minister of Justice, but the whole National administration

By August 2014, the allegations of sleaze, corruption, conflicts of interest became over-whelmingly and Collins was forced to step down from her ministerial roles.

There were many other instances of cronyism revealed during National’s nine years in office. Several resulted in ministerial resignations.

If the appointment of a former Finance Minister to a working group focused on Finance issues (ie, taxation) is the worst that National can throw at the new Coalition government – then it is lobbing damp squibs.

Considering National’s own recent murky history, the issue of cronyism is one where it might be wiser to keep a very, very, very low profile.

.

Appendix

A roll call of some of National’s cronies – ex-members of Parliament appointed to various government bodies, organisations, NGOs, working groups, etc;

Former Finance Minister, Steven Joyce, rails against the Coalition government’s plans to introduce a regional fuel tax for Auckland, claiming;

“Because if they controlled their costs properly they’d be able to have the sort of money, the $150 million a year that a regional fuel tax would generate, they’d have that in surplus if they just ran the council properly.

This is the same minister whose previous government racked up $70 billion in debt during their nine years term – exacerbated by two unaffordable tax cuts in 2009 and 2010, and increasing debt by $2 billion each year. (Scoop media: “Govt’s 2010 tax cuts costing $2 billion and counting”) In effect, National borrowed money – up to $450 million per week in 2009 – from offshore to put into the pockets of mostly top income earners.

Which made a mockery of John Key’s claim in August 2008 that National’s planned tax-cuts would be “hermetically sealed” from the rest of National massive borrowing plans. (NZ Herald: “Nats to borrow for other spending – but not tax cuts”)

Let’s hope the Auckland Council doesn’t follow National’s appalling record of “controlling their costs properly”. It would bankrupt the city.

.

-Frank Macskasy

[address and phone number supplied]

.

Each time the Nats open their mouths to carp about the Coalition’s reforms, it is a delight to remind them of their own pitiful track record over the last nine years. And for Steven Joyce, I offer his very own:

.

.

.

.

Postscript

It appears that Mr Joyce has taken offence at something I’ve said. The poor fragile flower has blocked me from his Twitter account;

.

.

It is highly reassuring to know that I have been noticed by those in high office. And amusing to realise just how incredibly thin-skinned they are.

THE SUPREME COURT has finally declared the deal struck between the Department of Labour and Pike River boss, Peter Whittall, “unlawful”. A moral victory for Sonja Rockhouse and Anna Osborne, certainly, but hardly a victory for the New Zealand justice system. Though the Supreme Court came through for the plaintiffs in the end, the High Court and, more worrying still, the Court of Appeal, had both earlier rejected their legal team’s arguments. Had these two women not been as tough as the Pike River rock, their gruelling legal journey all the way to the Supreme Court might never have been completed. It would still be legally acceptable for delinquent chief executives to buy their way out of a conviction. Significantly, too much time has passed for Mr Whittall to be hauled back into court.

What is wrong with our justice system that the judgements of its lower courts have so often been overturned and criticised by the Law Lords of the UK Privy Council and, more latterly, the judges of our own Supreme Court? Why, for example, did it require a determined journalist, an Aussie jurist and a bloody-minded prime minister to give Arthur Alan Thomas justice? Why was New Zealand’s Court of Appeal so manifestly unequal to that task? And why was Peter Ellis unable to rely upon that same Court of Appeal to clear his name? In other jurisdictions, all the victims of the moral panics induced by false “Satanic Abuse” accusations had their convictions overturned in their countries’ courts of appeal. Not here.

It’s almost as if the New Zealand courts are afraid of acknowledging the occasional mistakes that all highly complex human institutions are bound to make. That once the State, or the Courts, have determined a person to be guilty, and an institution innocent, then that judgement must be upheld at any cost. Those exercising authority over their fellow citizens have been robed, like the Pope, in the vestments of infallibility. Thus protected, their judgements are only very rarely overturned.

Those filling the high seats of our justice system are not only reluctant to overturn the decisions of their colleagues in the lower courts, but they seem equally reluctant to hold accountable their peers in public administration and corporate management. And woe betide any members of the judiciary who so forget themselves that they condemn wrong-doing in high places in memorable and evocative language. When Judge Peter Mahon called the testimony of Air New Zealand to the Erebus Inquiry “an orchestrated litany of lies”, the national airline appealed to his brother judges to have the offending words struck out. They happily obliged!

This ingrained reluctance to hold New Zealand’s most powerful citizens and institutions to account, renders our justice system contemptible in the eyes of those who look to the judiciary for protection against the growing power of the state and its agencies. As if this failure wasn’t serious enough, the judiciary’s all-too-obvious reverence for the wielders of power in New Zealand society has, over many decades, seeped down into the minds of the broader population, contaminating the pool of potential jurors.

The near impossibility of securing a conviction in even the most egregious cases of police officers breaking the law is, in part, a reflection of the judiciary’s failure to educate the public in the supreme importance of making sure that those entrusted with the enforcement of the law understand how absolutely they are professionally and personally bound to uphold it. It is not difficult to understand why, earlier this week, after learning of the acquittal of two Police officers charged with kidnapping a 17-year-old youth, Dr Dean Knight, a senior law lecturer at Wellington’s Victoria University, tweeted: “I worry the rule of law took a hit today.”

It’s as well the Supreme Court chose the same week to reaffirm the principle that, in a nation of laws, it must remain utterly unacceptable for persons charged with offences to avoid conviction by simply handing over a great deal of money. Until the members of this country’s highest court intervened, the Labour Department’s refusal to present evidence against Peter Whittall had provided the critics of our judicial system with a seemingly irrefutable example of the way in which the powerful are able to close ranks against people like Sonja Rockhouse and Anna Osborne – making a mockery of their expectation that all citizens will be treated equally before the law.

Had they not, then the words of the Ancient Scythian philosopher, Anacharsis, would have been borne out in their entirety:

“These decrees of yours are no different from spiders’ webs. They’ll restrain anyone weak and insignificant who gets caught in them, but they’ll be torn to shreds by people with power and wealth.”

In an interview with Corin Dann on TVNZ earlier this month, NZ Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, supported former Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully’s move to co-sponsor UN Security Council Resolution 2334. The Resolution condemned Israel’s persistent violations of international law, in particular, its illegal settlements on militarily-Occupied Palestinian land. The Prime Minister responded in the interview: “We should absolutely use the voice that we had in a critical position within the UN at that time — a particularly critical position at that time — to, yes, take a stand.” She reminded Dann that “The United Nations Security Council passed the resolution in December last year.” That is the real point, UNSCR Resolution 2334 reflects, and is consistent with, decades of UN Resolutions deploring Israel’s violations of the human rights provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention. New Zealand has a tradition of supporting and abiding by international law. However, our Foreign Affairs Minister, Winston Peters, has called into question New Zealand’s sponsorship of the Resolution and his views have been echoed, online, in statements by the New Zealand First Party.

The Israel Lobby

The Israel Institute of New Zealand, in an article entitled Post Election outlook for New Zealand’s relationship with Israel, noted with pleasure that Winston Peters was now in the position of ‘king maker’. The article considered it was likely that a number of long-term National supporters had voted for Peters in the last election because of his support for Israel. The Institute hoped for and believed that, whichever party was in a position to form a government, “the almost inevitable alliance with New Zealand First presents an opportunity for New Zealand to recalibrate its relations with Israel. Effectively, the government could draw a line under its disastrous sponsorship of UN Resolution 2334, and look to strengthen its ties with Israel.”

Winston Peters has declared that the Resolution is not consistent with New Zealand’s policy settings, going so far as to add that this is “why country’s [sic] like Australia and others are asking the New Zealand Government for an explanation.” Peters also said: “The reality is that Mr McCully’s actions and the government’s condonation of them have seriously prejudiced this country’s international relations.”

The Foreign Affairs Minister needs to explain his reasoning behind this last assertion, because Resolution 2334 was passed, with no vote against it. He must now state clearly whether or not he supports the Prime Minister’s position regarding the Resolution. He should also explain whether he agrees or disagrees with the Resolution’s statement that “all measures aimed at changing the demographic composition and status of Palestinian territories occupied by Israel, including construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians are in violation of international humanitarian law, Israel’s obligation as the occupying Power according to the Fourth Geneva Convention, and previous resolutions.”

New Zealand’s Permanent Representative at the Security Council, Gerard van Bohemen, has commented: “every [Israeli] settlement creates false hope for the settlers that the land will one day be part of a greater Israel. Every settlement takes land away from Palestinians needing homes or farmland or roads.” In 1967, even the Israeli Government’s chief legal adviser, Theodor Meron, warned his government that, according to international law, “a nation may not settle its citizens on land that it has gained by conquest to usurp the rights of the original residents.”

Fifty years ago, on 22 November 1967, the UN Security Council voted unanimously in favour of Resolution 242, demanding Israel’s withdrawal from the Palestinian territories it had seized. Israel, nevertheless, refused to withdraw and it continues, to this day, to demonstrate contempt for the Palestinian people, the world community and international law. It has illegally annexed East Jerusalem, claiming that it is part of its ‘eternal, undivided’ capital. This annexation violates the essential principle of international law – that a foreign power cannot have sovereignty over conquered, belligerently-Occupied territory. For that reason, no country in the world, including Israel’s closest ally, the United States, recognises Israel’s claim over East Jerusalem.

New Zealand’s position must be unequivocal

It is an embarrassment that the New Zealand Government should have a Prime Minister and a Foreign Affairs Minister, who is also Deputy Prime Minister, that disagree on a matter directly concerning the Security Council and the observance of international humanitarian law. Given New Zealand First’s declared position regarding UNSC Resolution 2334, are Labour and the Greens prepared to oppose any attempt by Winston Peters and New Zealand First to reverse the Government’s support for international humanitarian law and Resolution 2334? The opposing views are, after all, irreconcilable. There is yet hope.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/11/25/is-winston-changing-tack/feed/3Communist In All But Name! Is Jacinda About to Oversee the Second Peaceful Transition to Kiwi Socialism?https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/11/23/communist-in-all-but-name-is-jacinda-about-to-oversee-the-second-peaceful-transition-to-kiwi-socialism/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/11/23/communist-in-all-but-name-is-jacinda-about-to-oversee-the-second-peaceful-transition-to-kiwi-socialism/#commentsWed, 22 Nov 2017 17:58:48 +0000https://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=94440

TO HEAR FORBES MAGAZINE TELL IT, socialism was achieved in New Zealand during 1960s and 70s, without bloodshed. In an opinion piece published by Forbeson Monday (20/11/17) former Lehman Brother’s staffer, Jared Dillian, put it like this:

“Not long ago, [New Zealand] was one of the most unfree economies that was not actually Communist in name. Most industry was nationalized, from telecommunications and transportation, to banks and hotels.”

This description is intended to – and probably will – shock the One Percenters who subscribe to Forbes. I, however, would happily wear Mr Dillian’s description of pre-1984 New Zealand as a badge of honour.

Most right-wingers insist that socialism can only be imposed on a country by force. They point to Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Castro’s Cuba and, more recently, to Chavez’s and Maduro’s Venezuela, as proof that the slightest deviation from the shining path of Neoliberalism can only end in tears – and firing-squads. And yet, according to Dillian, New Zealand cracked it! Accomplishing its transition from Capitalism to Socialism through free and fair elections, and without the need for a single gulag, or a single shot being fired.

Naturally, Dillian does his best to paint for his readers the most lurid picture possible of life under New Zealand’s democratic-socialist regime. One can only imagine his millionaire readers shuddering with fear upon learning that:

“There were strict capital controls and prohibitions on owning foreign assets. And of course, punitively high tax rates, inflation, and extraordinary levels of government debt.”

Now high inflation and crippling government debt were all-too-common afflictions during the 1970s, and by no means confined to “unfree economies” like New Zealand. The oil shocks of 1973 and 1979 had destabilised the “free” and “unfree” economies of the world with admirable even-handedness.

Not that Neoliberal boosters, like Mr Dillian, will ever admit that these sudden and dramatic increases in the price of industrial capitalism’s most indispensable commodity offer a far better explanation for the demise of post-war prosperity than the Right’s “usual suspects” – meddling politicians, self-serving bureaucrats and out-of-control trade unionists.

Like all good fairy stories, however, Mr Dillian’s has a happy ending:

“The 1980s saw an enormous rollback in the size and scope of government, and the beginning of a supply-side revolution. Of course, economic liberalization was happening around the world at that time, but it was most dramatic in tiny New Zealand.”

On that Mr Dillian and I find ourselves in agreement!

A few sentences back, I made reference to Mr Dillian’s happy ending: in that regard, it seems, I was a little premature. For all its bluster and bullshit, Neoliberalism turns out to be a remarkably fragile ideology. So much so, that the election of Jacinda Ardern – the Kiwi politician who dared describe Capitalism as “a blatant failure” – was enough to give Mr Dillian (and no doubt a good many of his readers) the heebee-jeebees:

“It seems likely that New Zealand will experience a recession during Ardern’s term. Nobody is predicting a return to the bad old days of the 70s, but New Zealand will probably lose its status as one of the most open, free economies in the world. It takes decades to weaken an economy, just like it takes decades to strengthen it. But investors will probably want to avoid New Zealand for the time being.”

For my money, that’s the most heart-warming endorsement of our new Labour Prime Minister that I have read to date. If Jacinda, with just two words, can shake the very foundations of Wall Street, then it’s possible that a “return to the bad old days of the 70s” may turn out to be something more than this old socialist’s pipe dream.

According to Mr Dillian, we Kiwis have pulled off a peaceful transition to something approaching “Communism” (although we didn’t call it that!) once before. If he’s right about that, then who’s to say that he isn’t also right about our new Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, being just the person to do it again!

The Philippines is the country with the largest single massacre of journalists – 32 on the island of Mindanao in 2009, where a three-month urban siege against jihadists in Marawi City has recently ended with a toll on many newsrooms.

Deadly crackdown
The deadly crackdown on drugs reportedly eased up last month when President Rodrigo Duterte ordered the police to leave action to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), saying the shift was to target “big fish”.

Human rights advocates had accused Duterte of waging a “war on the poor”, but Mangahas argues that there has been no real change in strategy.

Johnny Blades, a senior journalist of RNZ International, will also speak about his challenging experiences in West Papua, especially during an “official” visit to the Indonesian-ruled Melanesian provinces in 2015.

A former Pacific Affairs Minister, Laumanuvao Winnie Laban, who launched the PMC a decade ago this year, will also be attending.

Professor Berrin Yanıkkaya, head of the School of Communication Studies at AUT, will launch a graphic new media book, Conflict, Custom & Conscience: Photojournalism and the Pacific Media Centre 2007-2017, edited by Jim Marbrook, Del Abcede, Natalie Robertson and David Robie.

“UNBELIEVABLE! WRONG! IDIOTIC!” One of the many admirable qualities about John Minto is that he never leaves anyone in any doubt about where he stands. His rejection of the strategy of “constructive engagement” with the Labour-NZ First-Green Government is unequivocal. For John, only “active democratic opposition” to Labour’s rather tentative embrace of the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) will suffice. In spite of the fact that barely thirty days have passed since Winston Peters anointed Jacinda Ardern as New Zealand’s first progressive prime minister in nine years, John is ready to call the Left onto the streets in protest at her government’s refusal to walk away from the CPTPP.

John’s argument for actively opposing the coalition government on this issue is driven by his conviction that the CPTPP is, substantially, the same document that the previous National Government signed up to in 2016. If this is true, then his question – “Why would any self-respecting New Zealander oppose the TPPA when National was in government and then excuse Labour for signing up to it?” – is entirely fair. But is the CPTPP substantially the same document as the TPPA? Unfortunately for John’s argument, the answer is an emphatic “No!”

The withdrawal of the United States from the TPP has fundamentally weakened the agreement and prompted its signatories to set in motion a plethora of revisionist initiatives. In the absence of the US, most of the worst clauses of the TPP are in abeyance until the Americans are ready to return to the fold – at which point the remaining signatories are practically certain to demand their renegotiation. True, the hated Investor/State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions stand part of the new CPTPP, but only in an attenuated form, and with a majority of the signatories actively pursuing bi-lateral “side agreements” intended to render them toothless.

These agreements are evidence of the growing global effort to diminish the power and scope of corporate interference in the affairs of nation states which the ISDS processes represent. This resistance to corporate power is not limited to “working people around the world”, as John suggests. On the contrary, it is being spearheaded by the same national governments which were forced to bail-out the delinquent financial institutions responsible for the Global Financial Crisis of 2008-09. Donald Trump, himself, is a fierce opponent of the ISDS provisions of multilateral trade agreements – quite rightly perceiving them as a threat to United States’ sovereignty. John is insisting that Jacinda’s government lop-off the ISDS provisions as some sort of grand anti-corporate gesture. She and her advisers, wisely in my view, are content to let them wither on the vine.

The Coalition Government’s circumspection in regard to the CPTPP is admirable in another, very import, respect. It indicates the Labour-led Government’s determination to avoid being drawn into the looming geopolitical stand-off between the United States and China.

Many New Zealanders would have noticed the diplomatic bonding that took place between Jacinda and the Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, in Danang and Manilla. This relationship is important – especially in the light of Australia’s recent, heavy-handed pushback against Jacinda’s Manus Island initiative. The new government is clearly looking to build diplomatic relationships untainted by America’s and Australia’s aggressive geopolitical ambitions. Wooing Canada is a good start. If followed by a strengthening of New Zealand’s relationships with the peoples of South America, it may allow us to “respectfully decline” to participate in Donald Trump’s, Shinzo Abe’s and Malcolm Turnbull’s “Indo-Pacific Strategy”.

With Australia as its southern pivot, the Indo-Pacific Strategy envisages the United States, Japan and India running a two-ocean-straddling policy of economic and military containment against the People’s Republic.

This is not a strategy New Zealand should have any part of, and yet, as John rightly points out: “The big Australian banks have been [plundering our economy] for decades. In 2015 for example the BNZ, ANZ, ASB and Westpac took over $4.4 billion in profit from this country.” New Zealand needs to prepare – and quickly – for the day when it may need to unequivocally distance itself from the increasingly bellicose policies of the US, Japan, Australia and India. When that day comes, the Australian bullying we have witnessed over the past week will be made to look like child’s play!

New Zealand needs to develop new relationships with the countries of the Pacific Rim. And those new relationships need to be based on progressive ideals, mutual protection and solid economic self-interest – with the latter being underpinned and facilitated through mutually beneficial multilateral trade agreements. Throughout history, trade and peace have marched hand-in-hand. New Zealand diplomacy needs to reflect that fact.

Is the CPTPP perfect, John? Of course, it isn’t. But, it is a substantially different document from the TPP-11, and the original TPPA. Rather than see the as-yet-unsigned agreement as a reason to get out and protest on the streets, it is my contention that we should view it as an opportunity to construct a new, progressive consensus about New Zealand’s place in the world – one which eschews the dangerous ambitions of our larger neighbours. It seems to me that Jacinda has already caught a glimpse this radically different future, and that she is as determined as we are to reposition New Zealand in a way that keeps its people safe, prosperous and independent.

My term for this drive towards a new consensus encompassing New Zealand’s diplomatic, military and economic future is “constructive engagement”. John might prefer to call it “active democracy”. Whatever its name, I do not believe it is in any way unbelievable, idiotic or wrong to call for a united front of progressive activists on the ground, to complement and energise the united front of progressive parties – Labour, NZ First and the Greens – in Parliament.

“ At the time, we were very much convinced on our side there were genuine negotiations going on. But I’ve got to say, it’s not looking like it was quite so genuine anymore.”

She further demanded an explanation from the NZ First leader;

“ I think Winston Peters should really explain himself to the public because there were a lot of voters who were disappointed in his decision. I think New Zealanders are owed an explanation. Was he being genuine, or was it just a play?”

Before the law change, parties bargaining for a collective agreement were required to conclude that agreement unless there was genuine reason not to. The change means that a collective agreement does not have to be concluded, however parties must still deal with each other in good faith.

The Employment Relations Amendment Act 2014 came into effect on 6 March 2015 and passed provisions in the Bill that “providing that the duty of good faith does not require parties to reach a collective agreement“.

So providing that employers could show they “acted in good faith“, there was no onus on them to conclude bargaining to achieve a collective agreement.

Sound familiar?

It should. It’s what Judith “Crusher” Collins has complained about;

“ At the time, we were very much convinced on our side there were genuine negotiations going on. But I’ve got to say, it’s not looking like it was quite so genuine anymore.”

The richest irony of all; National complaining that bargaining to establish a “collective agreement” for a National-NZFirst Coalition was not conducted in good faith.

“Good faith bargaining” and the “National Party” – not words we usually associate together in the same sentence.

My heart bleeds.

.

New Zealanders owed an explanation?!

.

Collins was engaging in some loud, toy-tossing whining when she demanded “I think Winston Peters should really explain himself to the public because there were a lot of voters who were disappointed in his decision. I think New Zealanders are owed an explanation”.

While we’re about who is owed explanations by whom, let’s re-cap on some matters that arose in the last nine years of National’s governance – and remain outstanding ;

2009 – Paula Bennett releases personal details relating to two solo-mothers, after they challenged the Minister’s decision to cease the Training Incentive Allowance (which Bennett herself used to gain a free tertiary education);

.

.

Not only did Bennett not apologise for misusing personal information for political point-scoring – she hinted she would do it again;

(Unsurprisingly, Collins was later “cleared” of allegations that “she was working with Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater to get rid of former Serious Fraud Office boss Adam Feeley”. Evidently, despite several fifteen minute telephone calls between Slater and Collins, Justice Lester Chisholm insisted that the “Whaleoil” blogger had ” over-embellished” when he sent emails saying Collins was “gunning for Feeley”. Yeah, right.)

Yet, questions still persist surrounding Collins’ dealings with Cameron Slater and people she allegedly tried to destroy.

Judith Collins: New Zealanders are owed an explanation.

.

Conclusion

.

It is unquestionably the role of the Parliamentary Opposition to question the government and hold it to account. Along with the media (as flawed as it sometimes is), a strong Opposition is a necessary function of a healthy democracy.

But having someone like Judith Collins, who has so many unanswered questions hanging over her, demanding accountability undermines the effectiveness of the Opposition.

Collins’ time has come and gone. She should resign from Parliament altogether and let her place be taken by someone untainted by dubious associations; questionable conflicts of interest; and allegations of mis-use of ministerial power.

.

.

.

.

= fs =

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/11/20/judith-collins-owes-an-explanation-to-voters/feed/16Why would any self-respecting New Zealander oppose the TPPA when National was in government and then excuse Labour for signing up to it?https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/11/20/why-would-any-self-respecting-new-zealander-oppose-the-tppa-when-national-was-in-government-and-then-excuse-labour-for-signing-up-to-it/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/11/20/why-would-any-self-respecting-new-zealander-oppose-the-tppa-when-national-was-in-government-and-then-excuse-labour-for-signing-up-to-it/#commentsSun, 19 Nov 2017 17:39:19 +0000https://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=94325

It has been astonishing to read some reaction on The Daily Blog to Labour’s decision to support the TPPA – albeit with some minor – trivial in fact – amendments.

These arguments suggest the “left” should tone down criticism of Labour for this decision and recognise that the right wing are so powerful and well-organised that if the new government doesn’t support the TPPA then it will be undermined, face a vile media/business backlash and pass up any chance for real progressive change in any area.

Unbelievable! Wrong! Idiotic!

In some ways this is a rerun of the argument from the 1980s as Labour trashed the economy and working people’s lives. Middle class Labour activists were kept on side with progressive social policy (a nuclear ban, isolation of apartheid South Africa and homosexual law reform) while the government smashed workers and their families. Today it’s the same middle-class Labour activists who are turning a blind eye to the neo-liberal TPPA while applauding, for example, the Kiwibuild programme which will support middle class children to get their first home while 41,000 homeless working-class people will get just 1000 new state homes – yes that’s right, just a miserly 1000 – built by the Labour-led government each year.

Labour says it has negotiated a softening of some of the most odious of the TPPA’s provisions, but this doesn’t pass the sniff test. The ISDS (Investor State Dispute Settlement) process remains intact. All that has been negotiated is a small reduction in the circumstances where it can be used.

The simple truth remains that foreign corporations will be able to sue our government if changes to our laws hurt their profits. More insidious than actually being sued by a foreign corporation is the chilling effect this will have on any future government wanting to legislate to improve our environment or prevent public health standards being eroded by big corporates as they are now. Officials pointing to the risk of being sued, or rumblings from foreign multinationals, will be enough for most politicians to back off.

Let’s remind ourselves of two other basic facts:

Firstly, TPPA is in essence a Bill of Rights for foreign corporations to extend their plunder of our economy. The big Australian banks have been doing this for decades. In 2015 for example the BNZ, ANZ, ASB and Westpac took over $4.4 billion in profit from this country. Our current account deficit will increase still further through the TPPA as we become pawns to more foreign investors looking for quick bucks from our back pockets.

Secondly the major purpose of the TPPA is to cement in place the neo-liberal reforms of the past 30 years. They want to restrict or prevent future regulations undermining the dominant position they have gained in the global economy. In other words they want neo-liberalism to live on even as it is rejected by working people around the world.

So what about the claimed benefits of the TPPA?

The TPPA provides only nominally better access to some markets for a few of our products. By nominal I mean the predicted benefit to the economy was estimated by Foreign Affairs and Trade to be a miserly $1 billion dollars by 2030 – yes that’s right – $1 billion by 2030! That’s less than the margin of error on Treasury estimates for the size of the economy from one year to the next, let alone 13 years out. And that was before the US pulled out – heaven knows how much more paltry the economic benefits will be now.

For example it will NOT guarantee better access to any markets for our dairy products – they are as dead in the water as they always have been. Japanese farmers, (Japan is now the biggest economy in the revived TPPA), who have a greater sense of sovereignty and self-respect than New Zealand farmers, are as vehemently opposed to NZ dairy imports as ever and these will remain stalled.

The TPPA is NOT even a “free-trade” agreement in the usual sense. Only a few chapters deal with trade – the rest deal with such issues as copyright or intellectual property rights of large corporations.

So why would any self-respecting activist oppose the TPPA when National were in government and then excuse Labour for signing up to it?

Progressive New Zealanders should vigorously oppose Labour’s decision to support the TPPA and welcome the Greens principled decision to oppose it.

As things stand we face the truly awful spectacle of a grand coalition of Labour and National joining forces in parliament to pass legislation setting in place this truly odious agreement.

It’s not too late to stop Labour signing up to it. Wring of hands and making pathetic excuses for Labour signing up to it will do nothing. Active democratic opposition can.

YOU HAVE TO GO BACK A LONG WAY to find anything remotely resembling Australia’s current treatment of New Zealand. For a supposedly friendly government to deliberately inject inflammatory disinformation into the political bloodstream of its supposedly closest neighbour is an extraordinarily provocative act. Not quite an act of war, but the sort of intervention that can all-too-easily provoke a catastrophic loss of trust.

It’s the sort of thing that the Soviets and the Americans used to do to one another all the time during the Cold War. Except, of course, those two superpowers were ideological and geopolitical rivals of the first order. It takes a real effort to re-cast the relationship between New Zealand and Australia in similar terms. Nevertheless, it’s an effort we are now obliged to make.

So, what is it that Australia has done? Essentially, its national security apparatus (presumably at the instigation of their political leaders) has released, mostly through media surrogates, a number of related stories calculated to inflame the prejudices of a certain type of New Zealander.

Like Australia, New Zealand harbours a frighteningly large number of racists. Politically-speaking, such people are easily aroused and have few qualms about setting-off ugly, racially-charged, debates on talkback radio, in the letters columns of the daily newspapers and across social media. These individuals are trouble enough when all they have to fight with are their own stereotypes and prejudices. Arm them with the carefully assembled disinformation of “fake news” and they instantly become quite dangerous.

And yet, this is exactly what the Australian authorities have done. Planting stories in their own press (knowing they will be picked up almost immediately by our own) about at least four boatloads of illegal immigrants that have set out for New Zealand only to be intercepted and turned back by the ever-vigilant officers of the Royal Australian Navy and their Coast Guard comrades. The purpose of this story (unsourced and lacking in detail, making it, almost certainly, fake news) was to paint New Zealand’s prime minister as an ill-informed and ungrateful diplomatic naïf: an inexperienced young idealist who doesn’t know which way is up when it comes to dealing with real-world problems.

This, alone, was an extraordinary intervention. To gauge how extraordinary, just turn it around. Imagine the reaction in Australia if some unnamed person in New Zealand’s national security apparatus leaked a memo to one of this country’s daily newspapers in which the negative diplomatic and economic consequences of being tainted by association with Australia’s flouting of international law is set forth in clinical detail. If the memo also contained a collection of highly critical assessments of Turnbull’s cabinet colleagues, allegedly passed-on by a number of unnamed western diplomats, then so much the better!

Canberra would not be impressed!

If the Australians had left it at just one intervention, then perhaps New Zealanders could simply have shrugged it off as yet another case of bad behaviour from the land of the under-arm bowlers. But when have the Aussies ever left it at “just one”?

The next intervention came in the form of “Ian” – formerly a guard (or so he said) at both the Nauru and Manus Island detention centres. For reasons it has yet to adequately explain, RNZ’s Checkpoint programme provided “Ian” with nearly ten, largely uninterrupted, minutes of air-time during which he poured-forth a stream of accusations and characterisations which, to put it mildly, painted the protesters occupying the decommissioned Manus Island facility in the most lurid and disquieting colours. The detainees were criminals, drug-dealers – paedophiles even! Not at all the sort of people New Zealanders would want in their country.

“Ian”, it turns out, is a “witness” well-known to the many Australian NGOs that have taken up the cause of the detainees on Manus and Nauru. They have noted the curious similarities between “Ian’s” supposedly personal observations and experiences, and the inflammatory talking-points constantly reiterated by Australia’s hard-line Immigration Minister, Peter Dutton. A cynic might describe the grim “testimony” of “Ian” and Dutton as mutually reinforcing.

No matter. New Zealand’s racist, Islamophobic and militantly anti-immigrant community had been supplied with yet another truckload of Australian-manufactured ammunition.

Enough? Not hardly! Only this morning (17/11/17) New Zealanders were fed the shocking “news” that the protesting Manus Island detainees are harbouring within their ranks an unspecified number of men guilty of having debauched and prostituted local girls as young as 10 and 13!

Too much? Over the top? Redolent of the very worst instances of the murderous racial-incitement for which the Deep South of the United States was so rightly infamous? It sure is! Which is why we must hope that the Internet does not operate on Manus Island. Because, if the local inhabitants were to read on-line that the detainees were responsible for prostituting their daughters, what might they NOT do?

One almost feels that the Australian spooks behind this extraordinary disinformation campaign would actually be delighted if the locals burned down the Manus Island detention centre with the protesting detainees inside it.

“This is what comes of 37-year-old Kiwi prime ministers meddling in matters they know nothing about!” That would be the consistent theme of the right-wing Australian media. It would not take long for the same line to be picked up here: first on social media, and then by more mainstream media outlets. Right-wing outrage, mixed with a gleeful “we told you so!”, could not, however, be contained within the news media for very long. Inevitably, the more outré inhabitants of the Opposition’s back bench would take possession of the controversy, from there it would cascade down rapidly to Opposition politicians nearer the front.

Before her enemies could say: “It’s all your fault!”, Jacinda would find herself under withering political fire from both sides of the Tasman. Canberra would register her increasingly fragile government’s distress with grim satisfaction.

As the men and women responsible for organising “Operation Stardust” deleted its final folder, and fed the last incriminating document into the paper-shredder, one or two of them might even have voiced a judiciously muted “Mission Accomplished!”

The right of workers to an alternative holiday when working on a public holiday has been strongly affirmed in an Employment Relations Authority decision against Wendco (NZ) Limited, the company that operates the Wendy’s stores in New Zealand.

Wendy’s had been using an interpretation of the law that effectively prevented most of their employees from accessing their lawful entitlement. In Wendy’s case, this was using a rule that an employee had to have worked the previous three Mondays if they wanted to claim an alternative holiday for working a public holiday on a Monday.

It was easy for managers to roster workers off one of those Mondays to stop them getting the entitlement.

Similar systems have actually been in operation at most fast food companies and in almost all industries with variable work patterns. The employer could just deny the entitlement and claim it wasn’t the workers “normal” working day and for most workers that was the end of it because they lacked the confidence to challenge it.

The Authority decision has clarified that such restrictive interpretations are not acceptable and given guidelines as to what must be considered.

Wendco has been ordered to recalculate entitlements for all employees back to July 1, 2012, and ensure every effort is made to contact previous employees who will be owed money.

There are 11 public holidays each year and Wendy’s would have at least 300 of their 500 staff working on those days. Nearly all of those workers have missed getting alternative holidays. The company must go back five years and recalculate entitlement. My guestimate is that the bill for Wendy’s will be around 16,500 days or $1.6 million worth of leave.

Unite will be making sure we contact every one of our former members to register their claims.

But I believe the decision will have far-reaching implications for workers in other industries.

It makes clear that the judgment on whether a day “would be an otherwise working day” must be done on an individual basis for each worker “and that each assessment must be genuine and made in good faith.”

No single formula will cover all workers in all situations – especially when there is a variable work roster.

However, the Authority says there should be four key things that need to be considered for a company like Wendy’s:

The employment agreement

The rosters, here available

The availability provisions, where available

The actual work patterns.

The authority member also said that in some cases the work patterns may be the most decisive factor in determining whether the public holiday was otherwise a working day. However, when using this factor “a minimum of three months, up to a maximum of six months, is a reasonable consideration of each employees work pattern.”

This is a very important part of the ruling because up to now it has been very difficult to get employers to use a longer period which generally produces a fairer result and isn’t easy to manipulate.

Elsewhere in the decision the authority member makes clear that whilst she cannot make a one-size fits all determination of the percentage of days worked, of for example Mondays, to get an entitlement. For “some employees the answer may be that it is clear if they worked more than 50% of the same day of the week in the preceding three to six months and so should be entitled to an alternative holiday.”

“More than 50%” is an improvement on what we have been able to get many employers to agree to in the past.

The judgement also gives a useful explanation of why the more than 50% formula is not always applicable, though should be the starting point.

The Authority member writes: “However, I will use an example to illustrate why more than 50% assessment does not always produce the correct answer. For my example, I will use a public holiday that falls on a Monday and an employee who has worked at least a six-month period prior to that public holiday. This employee has not worked the majority of the preceding 25 or 26 Mondays. However, they have worked on the preceding eight Mondays. In that case it is likely that the employee had a reasonable expectation that they would work on the 9thMonday that happens to be the public holiday. In that case, it is likely that for that employee, whether they were originally rostered for that day or not, the public holiday Monday on which they work was otherwise a working dar them.”

“Wendco cannot apply a blanket approach to crew members on variable rosters because that is not an individually applied approach for each employee. An individual employee approach is simply part of the price Wendco pays for the benefit of the convenience it gains by using variable rosters.”

There will be other exceptions when, for example, someone has worked less than three months. In that case their entire work period should be considered.

It is with great joy that I am going to quote the entire final section with the “orders” from the Authority to Wendco. This is justice for Wendy’s workers that is long overdue. Special thanks should also go to Rose Williams, the Unite Union delegate at Wendy’s in Hornby, Christchurch, who first raised the issue with the Labour Inspector over two and a half years ago!

Orders

[79] Under s 223E of the Employment Relations Act 2000 I detemine that Wendco (NZ) Limited:

(i) has failed and is failing to comply with s 56 of the Holidays Act 2003 because it has not provided all employees with an alternative holiday when they have worked on a public holiday that would otherwise be a working day.

(ii) has failed and is failing to comply with s 60 of the Holidays Act 2003 because it has not paid all employees for any alternative holidays they became entitled to during their employment but had not taken when their employment ended.

(iii) must conduct a review of the public holidays worked by all past and current employees of the Hornby9 and Dunedin restaurants since they opened. For the other restaurants throughout New Zealand conduct a review of all public holidays worked by all current and past employees that have occurred since 1 July 2012.

(iv) must determine where any employee has worked on a public holiday, if that public holiday would otherwise have been a working day for that employee taking into account all the relevant factors in s 12 of the Holidays Act 2003, bearing in mind this determination.

(v) must, for each of the employees, record the reasoning used to decide if the public holiday would otherwise have been a working day.

(vi) credit each employee with an alternative holiday if the public holiday was found to be otherwise a working day for that employee. If the employee is no longer employed Wendco must make payment for the alternative day to that employee instead, under s 60 of the Holidays Act 2003.

(vii) must keep evidence of attempts to contact past employees for the purpose of making such payments, if it has not been possible to make payment to them.

(viii) provide evidence of the above steps, including copies of the reviews with the reasoning for every decision, copies of holiday and leave records for current employees showing amended leave balances and evidence of payments made to former employees or attempts to contact them for the purpose of making payments, to Ms Baldwin by a date to be agreed between Ms Baldwin and Wendco, or set by the Authority after hearing from both parties

Unite believes that this decision also has implications for other companies, like McDonald’s and Restaurant Brands, which have operated a more restrictive interpretation of the law than this decision has said is lawful.

This week an unsolicited EziBuy brochure turned up in my mail box. It was unnecessarily wrapped in plastic, and unappealing in its styles, utopian in its settings, unrealistic in its prices. But there was a more insidious underlying issue that took a while to become apparent. Of the 117 pages, including front and back, there were only about five that contained any images of dark skinned women.

When I observed on that great stewing cauldron of opinion, Facebook, that there were virtually no ‘women of colour’ in EziBuy pages, I was told I was homogenising women. (Sorry to every one of you!). I was told the descriptor ‘of colour’ was an ‘Americanism’; I should have referred to Indian, African-American, Maori, Pacifica…. While labels matter, racism itself is of broader concern.

The absence in EziBuy of pictures of Maori, Asian, Pacific, Middle Eastern women of all ethnicities and nations, and other women who make up the diversity of New Zealand life, meant that women different from a ‘white’ homogenous ‘standard’ were made subject to ‘symbolic annihilation’. They were made invisible, denormalised, diminished. And given the role the media of all types plays in shaping views of ourselves and the world, EziBuy failed to reflect, speak to, or even acknowledge the beautiful diversity of New Zealand women. That every woman in the catalogue met a rare and unrealistic standard of ‘perfect’ teeth, hair and height, was a bad enough signal to real women everywhere, but the absence of real, diverse New Zealand women, said only white women (of certain Aryan characteristics) are and can be, beautiful and suitable for wearing EziBuy clothes.

In the long Facebook discussion that followed, I was told that ‘we should just get over it and stop whining and making politics out of everything’. “We should all be one people”. Someone I’m fond of said I should just face up to the fact that we are white New Zealand.
I double checked New Zealand’s demographic figures, which confirmed we are definitely not ‘white NZ’, but are 14+% Maori, 11% Asian, 7+% Pacifica, plus other ethnicities, and just 72% are ‘European New Zealanders’. Certainly when I walk down an Auckland street it looks a lot like a mixed modern city to me. And all the richer for it. Though no wonder attitudes of European entitlement and privilege prevail. It was only in the 1970s that New Zealand stopped selecting immigrants just based on their European descent, and instead accepted them on more equal basis of skills, financial capacity and family links. We’re dealing with a culture that’s still striving to retain its dominion.

The recognition and denigration of others based on physical characteristics is said to stem from unity of tribal group bonds and fear of those who are different. Racist stereotypes have long been used in this country to justify a settler society and colonisation. Claims that we should have ‘one (white) law for all’, and be ‘one’ New Zealand, assume a systematic Euro-centric superiority, dishonour the Treaty, insult bi-culturalism and thwart opportunities for recognition and celebration of indigeneity, and diversity.

Diversity and different skin colour and dress in our communities is an obvious sign of social change, and those with established privilege or status, even if they can’t see it themselves, will feel threatened by change and by a society they perceive as filled with others. There’s casual racism and every day bias against Indian shopkeepers and bus drivers, women in headscarves, Maori, ‘Asian homeowners’. Fourth generation kiwis of Chinese descent get told to go back where they came from. A whole range of derogatory terms are used to describe good, hard working kiwis who, if they had the same skin colour as the dominant paradigm and its narratives, wouldn’t raise an eyebrow. In many cases, prejudice works against people just because of the colour of their skin not because of the fact that they’re foreigners though – there’s less bias against immigrants from England, Australia or Europe, than there is against indigenous Maori and Pacific Islanders, or people of ‘different’ colour.

That’s because colour is a proxy for political inequality – power imbalance. Who needs a brand or a label to highlight the target of your opposition when simple pigment will do. Racism is, according to sociologists, ‘a political construct, primarily a manifestation of unequal power between groups’. It’s the machinery of an ‘ethnocentric paradigm’ which maintains those unequal power relations.

The absence of ethnically diverse women in fashion magazines as part of media bias, ‘defines the contours of society’, shapes our understanding of the world, how we see ourselves, how we are seen, and helps create ‘social identities and realities’. It’s a form of ‘racial framing’.

So while some said ‘it’s just a magazine selling clothes, don’t read too much into it’, the racism problem goes further than just in magazines. There’s evidence from the Human Rights Commission that racism is getting worse though most victims of racism ‘suffer in silence’ according to Commissioner Susan Devoy. And racism works on all fronts, there’s internal, interpersonal, institutional, and societal racism affecting individual’s health, wellbeing, experiences and life chances in the workplace, public sector and in the provision of goods and services. It’s been seen in popular culture from ‘My Kitchen Rules’, to the NZ Music Awards. It’s expressed in differential access to health care, education, rental accommodation, and in unequal treatment through the criminal justice system.

It was pointed out that EziBuy is an Australian owned company, as if that explains the homogenous white women filling their pages. It certainly doesn’t excuse it. But given New Zealand and Australia are richly ethnically diverse and are both target audiences for the magazine and the company’s clothes, it would be wholly appropriate to include images that represent the real women of those countries. In fact, EziBuy started as a New Zealand company, before it was bought by Coles and then Woolworths, so it has had quite an opportunity to reflect the make-up of its country of origin. Their head office is in Parnell.

There were no pictures of models with t-shirts saying ‘I’m racist on the inside’ in the EziBuy magazine, to adopt an angle from the Human Rights Commission’s ‘Give nothing to racism’ campaign fronted by Taika Waititi. And even when we think we’re (one) colour blind, we’re seeing the world from a particular lens. The concerning thing about the EziBuy catalogue was that it presented a (series of) false realities as if they were ideals. Though there was no ‘I’m racist on the inside’ label on the cover, its pictures spoke a thousand words, if only you read between the lines.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/11/18/reflections-on-racial-exclusion-in-an-ezibuy-catalogue/feed/23Darkness At The End Of The Rainbow?https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/11/16/darkness-at-the-end-of-the-rainbow/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/11/16/darkness-at-the-end-of-the-rainbow/#commentsWed, 15 Nov 2017 20:23:53 +0000https://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=94255

WEDNESDAY, 15 NOVEMBER 2017 will go down in Australian history as Marriage Equality Day. In an unprecedented national plebiscite, 61.6 percent of the 79.5 percent of voting-age Australians who returned their postal ballots voted YES to marriage equality. With this resounding vote in favour, Australia joined the rest of the world’s progressive nations in rejecting homophobia and discrimination.

But, Wednesday, 15 November 2017 will be remembered for something more than Australia’s endorsement of marriage equality. It will also be recorded by social historians and psephologists as the day conservative Australians were required to accept a forceful and irrefutable message confirming their minority status in Australian society.

Hostility towards homosexuality is one of the most reliable markers of the authoritarian personality. It will, therefore, come as a profound shock to people of this personality type that their attitudes are not shared by an overwhelming majority of the population. That nearly two-thirds of their fellow citizens see nothing untoward about same sex couples getting married will deliver a shattering blow to their perception of “normality”. They will be dismayed by how far the world has strayed from their “traditional values”.

For some, the events of 15 November 2017 will prompt a thorough-going reassessment of their moral and political expectations of themselves and their fellow Australians. If they are lucky, this reassessment will liberate them from the debilitating effects of conservative ideology, fundamentalist religious beliefs and authoritarian attitudes. For many others, perhaps a majority, however, the discovery that their hatreds and prejudices towards the LGBTI community is shared by just 38.4 percent of their fellow Australians will evoke a very different – and potentially dangerous – response.

For these conservatives, the plebiscite outcome will be interpreted as irrefutable proof of how sick and sinful their society has become. Religious conservatives, in particular, will have no difficulty accepting their minority status. After all, doesn’t Jesus, in Matthew’s Gospel, enjoin them to enter in by the strait gate? “[F]or wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat”? And doesn’t he also say that “strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”

No, the Christian fundamentalists will not be in the least bit surprised to discover that 61.6 percent of their neighbours are going to Hell.

Political conservatives and authoritarian personalities will have a much harder time of it, however. For their brand of politics, 15 November 2017 can only have been a profoundly delegitimating experience. Electorally, it could very easily signal their imminent marginalisation. “Mainstream” politicians will now have to adjust to the fact that social liberalism, which they understood to be confined to the effete inhabitants of the inner-cities, is actually embraced by a much more extensive cross-section of the Australian population. For many, on both sides of the parliamentary aisle, it will rapidly become advisable to evince a more progressive and tolerant political persona.

For the diehards, however, it is not yet the time to lay down their arms and surrender to the bacchanalian throngs gyrating joyously in the streets of Sydney and Melbourne. They still have eleven cards left to play.

The more sharp-eyed and ruthless members of the Liberal and National party rooms will have noticed that of the 17 federal electorates which voted “No” to marriage equality, fully 11 of them are held by the Australian Labor Party. In the strategically vital “Western Suburbs” of Sydney, the seats of Greenway, Chifley, McMahon, Fowler, Warriwa, Blaxland, Watson. Barton and Parramatta – all of them held by Labor MPs – voted “No”. Some, like Greenway, only very narrowly. (53.6 percent) Others, like Blaxland, by a huge margin. (73.9 percent!) In socially-liberal (some would say, radical) Melbourne, the only electorates which rejected marriage equality were the Labor-held seats of Calwell and Bruce.

There is simply no way the Labor Party can defeat the Liberal-National Coalition if even a handful of these eleven safe seats slip from the Opposition’s grasp. And while, in normal times, any suggestion that a seat like Chifley might be lost to the Liberals would be greeted with full-strength Aussie derision, it remains an awkward fact that we are not living in normal times.

Prior to 8 November 2016, the very idea that the states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania might be about to fall to Trump would have been met with loud American guffaws. But not after 8 November. Lashed and goaded in just the right way, the normally left-voting inhabitants of places like Michigan – or Chifley – can end up doing the strangest things.

For progressive Australians, 15 November 2017 will forever be bathed in all the vibrant colours of the rainbow. But, for the conservative ideologues, the religious fanatics and the authoritarian personalities trapped in their suffocating character armour, 15 November 2017 will be registered as nothing more than a temporary setback. The bigots might concede that, on this memorable day, they have lost a battle. But, for them, the war against a society grounded in gentleness, tolerance and love will go on.

New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern (L) talks with Trade and Export Growth Minister David Parker at the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) meeting on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) leaders’ summit in the central Vietnamese city of Danang on November 10, 2017.World leaders and senior business figures are gathering in the Vietnamese city of Danang this week for the annual 21-member APEC summit. / AFP PHOTO / POOL / Na Son Nguyen (Photo credit should read NA SON NGUYEN/AFP/Getty Images)

THE CORE ELEMENTS of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) remain in place. According to Professor Jane Kelsey, the most dangerous of these, the Investor/State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions, although modified slightly for the better, continue to empower multinational corporations at the expense of participating nation states. The New Zealand Left is, thus, confronted with a dilemma: to maintain a pure oppositionist stance; or, to attempt to work with the new Labour-NZ First-Green government as it attempts to further modify and moderate the worst aspects of the agreement.

A retreat into uncompromising oppositionism would have the effect of further isolating and weakening the traditional New Zealand Left. Given that the traditional Left’s political effectiveness, after 30 years of neoliberalism, is already at an historically low-ebb, this hardly presents itself as a winning strategy. Labour, and its partners in government, would have little option but to paint its traditional leftist opponents as activists without the slightest understanding of what New Zealand governments can, and cannot, do. What’s more, in the eyes of the moderate, social-democratic Left (the traditionalists’ only feasible political allies) Jacinda Ardern’s government would be entirely justified in doing so.

Just saying “No!” to the TPP is about as helpful in the current geopolitical context as Nancy Reagan’s “Just say No” slogan was in the “War on Drugs”. It betrays a complete failure to understand the pressures being brought to bear on the New Zealand Government, both domestically and internationally. And that’s not all, knee-jerk oppositionism also fails to acknowledge the very real benefits that free trade agreements can bring to New Zealand exporters. The traditional Left, consequently, come across as economic illiterates – further diminishing their political credibility.

The example of Canada’s performance at the Apec Summit is instructive in this respect. As a nation of 36.3 million people, and with the second largest economy of the remaining eleven signatories to the TPP, its prime minister, Justin Trudeau, was far better positioned to take an uncompromising stand against the worst aspects of the agreement than the New Zealand team of Jacinda Ardern, David Parker and Winston Peters. And yet, even Trudeau was unable to resist the pressure – principally and particularly from Japan – to return to the negotiating table.

It is very easy for the traditional Left to call for grand gestures of defiance against the prevailing geopolitical realities: living with the consequences of such calls when you are in government is much harder.

What the Trudeau government does offer the New Zealand Left, however, is a lesson in how a broad, open-ended public discussion of both the costs – and the benefits – of the TPP free trade agreement was able to strengthen the hand of his government’s negotiating team. Confident that he was speaking for a majority of the Canadian people, Trudeau felt empowered to push his country’s negotiating position as hard as he could, short of damaging, seriously, Canada’s long-term diplomatic interests by inflicting a humiliating loss of face on the Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe.

This is the course of action which the moderate, social-democratic Left, including the Council of Trade Unions, will be urging on Labour, NZ First and the Greens (neither of whom will need much in the way of convincing!) An open and “robust” discussion about the advantages and disadvantages to New Zealand of the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) as the agreement has been rebranded, will allow the arguments for and against international free-trade to be energetically rehearsed – most especially the arguments against the ISDS provisions.

A strategy of “constructive engagement” with the Labour-NZ First-Green government, by promoting transparency and encouraging the emergence of a national consensus on what the CPTPP should – and should not – contain, promises much more in the way of political effectiveness and achievement than simply shouting angry oppositionist criticism from the side-lines – the location to which, most assuredly, those comrades who give heed the purist slogans of the traditional Left will find themselves consigned.

It was sad reading Stephen Hickson’s defence of capitalism in the Press (25 October 2017). Sad because capitalism has delivered so much outright misery to so much of humanity over the last 300 years that it’s hard to believe anyone could be so blinkered.

Capitalism was never intended to meet human needs. It was developed and maintained by the wealthy and powerful, and supervised by their political representatives, to make profits. Small wonder then that capitalism creates a vast quagmire of problems in its wake – no more so than in New Zealand.

When 41,000 people are living in overcrowded homes; cars and vans; cockroach infested caravans and under bridges then the housing market has failed. Left to itself, capitalism will only ever provide a cardboard shack for a family on a low income.

On a global scale we see the same pattern. Planet earth produces enough grain each year to comfortably feed the entire human population but through the capitalist drive for profit, half that grain is used to feed animals to provide meat for middle class appetites while tens of millions of our fellow human beings starve.

Likewise the big American drug companies who claim they need to charge exorbitant amounts for new drugs because of the huge cost in developing them, spend much more money on advertising than they do on research and development.

To some extent it is a failure of governments to intervene in markets which exacerbates the negative impacts of capitalism, as Hickson suggests, but the last 30 years of unfettered capitalism has shown us its true nature.

Working people’s share of our national income has gone down dramatically while the share of income going to profits has increased. In other words, those who do the work to produce the wealth are getting less while those who live off wealth produced by others have had big increases in unearned income.

Deep in the belly of the capitalist beast, the US, there are 45 million Americans (15% of the population) living below the poverty line while in New Zealand we have one in four of our children living similarly in what once was called “God’s own country”.

Hickson is right to suggest taxes and regulations can help ease the worst problems with capitalism but this is like putting band aids on a cancer.

Hickson gives the example of the top 11% of income earners paying 48% of total income tax while the poorest 49% pay only nine percent of income tax.

However, no single figure on tax could be more misleading. Hickson ignores GST and the fact little or no tax is paid on the unearned income of the wealthy via such windfalls as capital gains, dividends or inheritance.

The poorest 10% of earners pay 14% of their incomes (after housing costs) on GST while the top 10% pay less than 5% of their income on GST. It is a tax that falls heaviest on those on the lowest incomes.

When one takes GST into account as well as income tax, a worker on the minimum wage pays around 26% of their income in tax while the Prime Minister will pay about 35% of her income in tax.

For someone on the rich list the figure will be less than 5%.

According to IRD, half the wealthiest 150 New Zealanders declare incomes of less than $70,000 for tax purposes. The rest of their massive income is for the most part untaxed. In reporting on the 2017 rich list earlier this year, NBR Editor Duncan Bridgeman said
“I think it’s continued boom times for the rich, the rich get richer and the rich are having a really successful period at the moment.”

According to Bridgeman New Zealand’s super wealthy increased their wealth by $7 billion over the past year to a total of $80 billion.

Think about that for a moment. This wealth is not created from thin air. It is made from manipulating the wealth created by working people. In other words, you and I and every person living in New Zealand has provided $1,500 more this past year so these 150 people could build a bigger pile of unearned income. And they pay next to no tax on it.

So why does a worker on the minimum wage pay a much higher tax rate than a rich lister?

Because rich listers have far greater political influence than the rest of us.

Capitalism is not the force for good its advocates claim. At heart it’s a mechanism for the few to amass wealth at the expense of the many.

Human beings are social beings. We are more naturally co-operative than competitive but capitalism is based on the reverse. The alternative is socialism (not the totalitarian state capitalism of the old USSR or China – misnamed as socialist or communist) whereby we co-operate together to ensure everyone has the ability to live lives of dignity and self-respect. That’s where our best future lies.

In the meantime the new government says it intends to set up a working group on taxation to come up with a fairer system. It’s long overdue but I’m not holding my breath. We will know from the outset by the makeup of the working group and its terms of reference whether the government is serious about reducing poverty and inequality and giving everyone a fair go.
Until then unfettered capitalism will continue to do its dirtiest work.

Fool me once, shame on you.

Fool me twice, shame on me!

.

That was then, this is now (1)

.

So what was National’s problem with the number of committee members on Select Committees? “Shadow leader of the House“, Simon Bridges, accused the new Labour-Green-NZ First coalition government of “ trying to limit scrutiny of its actions by attempting to cut the number of Opposition MPs on select committees because it is short on numbers itself ”.

Bridges claimed;

“ One of the most important ways to do that is through the select committee process. But rather than fronting up to that scrutiny, Labour is now saying it wants to allow fewer elected representatives to carry out that vital function – that’s undemocratic.

While the number of positions on select committees has traditionally matched the number of MPs in Parliament, Labour wants to restrict the number because it doesn’t have enough members of its own.”

It’s true. The new Coalition government was going to reduce Select Committee numbers from 120 to 96.

But Bridges was not being truthful with the public when he blamed Labour for wanting to “restrict the number because it doesn’t have enough members of its own”.

“We do not favour specifying the number of seats in the Standing Orders. The Business Committee should retain the ability to determine the size of each committee. We propose instead that the Business Committee adopt a target of 96 seats across the 12 subject select committees. We considered models based on 108 committee seats, which would have little impact given the decrease in the number of committees, and 84 committee seats, which would leave too many members without permanent committee seats—a matter considered below. A total of 96 seats will result in most committees having seven, eight, or nine members.”

Bridges belatedly admitted that the reduction in Select Committee numbers was a decision made by National when it had been in government. But he complained that National had made the decision because they were trying to be ‘nice’ to Labour and other opposition parties;

“ We were a Government [in July] … trying to accommodate the Opposition who wanted that. But now the Opposition doesn’t want it. Because back then, it is such a disadvantage to us.”

“Disadvantage”?

David Carter’s July 2017 report was clear in its intent;

“We believe there would be some merit in decreasing the overall number of select committee seats while retaining the proportionality requirement. Committees are generally larger than is necessary for them to be effective, and some members have too many committee commitments. With a decrease in the number of subject committees from 13 to 12, committees would become even larger if the overall membership remained around 120.

A decrease in committee seats would provide more flexibility for parties to manage committee attendance and absences. This flexibility would also allow members to attend committee meetings according to their interests, expertise, and availability. Government backbench members would not be expected to be on more than two committees each, allowing them to be more focused in their committee work. There could also be greater scope to arrange extended sittings at the same time as committee meetings, as fewer members would be required to attend those meetings.”

No mention made of “trying to accommodate the Opposition”. Carter’s report was more concerned with National backbench MPs being over-worked. “Making nice” with Labour is not mentioned.

National’s modus operandi of dishonesty appears not to have changed as they begin their long twilight Decade of Opposition.

“ The role of the Opposition is to hold the Government to account, to scrutinise its actions and to advocate for the views of the people they are elected to represent. One of the most important ways to do that is through the select committee process. ”

Curiously, the role of Select Committees to “hold the Government to account, to scrutinise its actions and to advocate for the views of the people they are elected to represent” did not seem to tax Mr Bridges’ noble views when National forced through the so-called ‘Hobbit Law’ in 2010.

The “Hobbit law” – aka the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Act 2010 – was enacted under Urgency from First Reading to Royal Asset in under 48 hours!

.

.

Such unheard of rapidity to pass legislation – even under Urgency – was the political equivalent of a starship travelling at near-light velocity. Needless to say there was no Select Committee over-sight. There was no scrutiny. And MPs did not get an opportunity to “advocate for the views of the people they are elected to represent“.

According to right-wing National apparatchik and blogger, David Farrar, and then Opposition Labour MP, Grant Robertson, the National government used Urgency to pass seventeen laws during it’s first two yours in office. There was no public consultation permitted. No public submissions sought.

National’s (mis-)use of Urgency during it’s nine years in office shows Bridges to be hypocritical when he preaches;

“ The Government must let parliamentary structures fully reflect the decisions of voters and allow its ideas to be tested – that’s in the interests of all New Zealanders.”

But when Simon Bridges was Minister for Labour in 2014, his view on passing health and safety legislation was in stark contrast. As I reported three years ago;

“ We know the minister has restricted right down what they’re allowed to look at. They’re not looking at fatigue. They’re not looking at weather. They’re not looking at hours of work. Simon Bridges has said, ‘no, wait for the review’. ”

Bridges response on Radio NZ’s Morning Report, on 28 April [2014], did nothing to allay fears that he was taking the side of forestry operators and doing everything within his power to stymie reform of the industry, and resist implementation of a stricter safety regime.

“ We can’t simply, ah, because Helen Kelly sez so, do something in two days.

... But I don’t think it’s a position where we can simply snap our fingers and change systemic, ah, ah, deep problems overnight. Indeed it would be entirely wrong for us to do that. ”

Hypocrisy on so many levels… where does one even start with the National Party?!

.

Treachery, National-style

.

In holding to ransom the election of Trevor Mallard as Speaker of the House, National bluffed it’s way to increase the number of their MPs that can be appointed to Select Committees. This was despite a clear understanding between the new Coalition government and National that Trevor Mallard would be elected unopposed as Speaker, and National’s Anne Tolley as Deputy Speaker.

By demanding a vote be taken, National reneged on their agreement.

The threat from the Opposition Benches was a dire warning to the new Coalition government that National was prepared to play dirty.

.

Chris Hipkins and Grant Robertson negotiate with duplicitous and disloyal National Opposition MPs

.

The Coalition has been taught a clear lesson. As Leader of the House, Chris Hipkins said after the fiasco;

“ Lesson learnt, they won’t catch us out on that ever again in the future. ”

“ Perhaps when dealing with the Opposition, I’ll be a little more careful to make sure I get a specific undertaking from them in future. ”

Indeed, Chris. Be very careful. The lesson of National’s willingness to engage in dirty tricks; double dealing; and other obstructionist tactics should not be lost on any Labour, Green, or NZ First MPs.

National MPs lack honour.

.

National’s desperation to remain relevant

.

For National, the stakes are high and they will do everything within their power – perhaps pushing as close to the edge of legality as humanly possible – to achieve the destruction of this Coalition government, and spark an early election.

Make no mistake. National realises two crucial things are in play;

#1: Polling Decay in Opposition

The longer the Nats remain in Opposition, the faster their public support will erode. Post 2008, Labour’s polling continued to plummet, whereas National’s ascendancy continued to build on it electoral success;

.

.

The longer National stays in Opposition, the further it’s public support will fall. It is hard to imagine that it’s election night result of 44.4% will be maintained to the next election in 2020.

In short, the Nats risk growing irrelevancy the longer they stay out of government.

“ We face an economic system without the slightest idea how to solve the problems created by its discredited policies and practices. Nevertheless, the Neoliberal Establishment remains very strong, and just as soon as it settles upon an effective strategy of resistance, the fightback will begin.

[…]

The Labour-NZ First-Green Government will be presented by these hard-line rightists as an illegitimate and dangerously anti-capitalist regime. Its anti-business and anti-farming policies, they will argue, are not only incompatible with genuine Kiwi democracy, but also constitute a direct attack on the sanctity of private property. As such, it will not be enough to merely oppose this far-left government; it will be necessary to fight it head-on. ”

Brexit. Donald Trump. Justin Trudeau. Jeremy Corbyn. Emmanuel Macron. Whether on the Left or Right, or Mad Populist; whether in office or not; there is a mood for change sweeping the globe. The promises of neo-liberalism; the “free” market; and globalism have failed to materialise for the many – whilst amassing vast wealth for the few.

“Trickle down” has become a sick joke that offers opportunities for cartoonists…

.

.

.

.

.

.

… but not much else for the unemployed; the low-paid; and the precariat. It’s hard to be a cheer-leader for globalisation when your job has been “exported” to Shanghai; outsourced to Manila; or replaced by a robot.

It is against that back-drop of growing public resentment against the neo-liberal orthodoxy that National understands it is living on ‘borrowed time’. The longer they remain in Opposition, the more time the Coalition government has to un-pick the strands of neo-liberalism and reinstate the role of the State in commerce, workplace relations, housing, education, health, and elsewhere.

The more that neo-liberalism is unravelled, the harder it will be for National in the long-term to re-build. Especially if a resurgent State succeeds in housing the homeless; fully funding public healthcare and cutting back waiting lists; and all the other cuts to social services that National sneaked through gradually, without being noticed except by a few.

Expect desperation to be the motivator for everything National does in the next three years.

English began by voicing that the incoming coalition government had not won the “popular vote”. First he complained that his Party should have been the government simply because of it’s size;

“ The voters at large probably expected that if you got 44 and a half percent of the vote, you were some part of the government or the big part of it.”

Then he suggested that the formation of the coalition was somehow “unusual”;

“…How to hold to account a government that’s been put together in an unusual way.”

English did not fully explain why the coalition formation was “unusual”.

Then he hinted that the Coalition government might not be legitimate;

“ Just remember this is a prime minister who’s the first one in a hundred years who lost the popular vote and lost it by quite a bit.”

… It didn’t win the vote.”

English’s comments might make sense under a First Past the Post system – but under MMP his arithmetic doesn’t add up. Added together, Labour, NZ First, and the Greens won more votes than National and ACT. More people voted for change than the status quo.

Which prompted Ms Ferguson to remind English that the new Coalition government is made up of three parties, so how was that different to the National-led government that he (English) led?

English’s response again reflected First Past the Post thinking, by referring to National as the larger party and thereby somehow entitled to rule;

“…when an election is lost, a larger party captured the direction New Zealand wanted to go in.”

Ms Ferguson had to remind Mr English that 44% is not a majority. The arithmetic simply did not support the National leader’s expectations of a “right to govern” based on size. Perhaps because he understood the nature of Radio NZ listeners, he was forced to admit;

“ I accept that, absolutely… It’s a legitimate result…”

Well, I’ve been saying all year that the… all the other parties put together can beat you on the day. And that’s what happened on Thursday. So that’s MMP. That’s how it works.”

But despite claiming to understand how MMP works, he couldn’t result a further dig at the Coalition;

“ Put it this way, if the Labour Party got 44% of the vote, I think anyone would argue they’d be in a stronger position to start a government than they are today.”

But Ms Ferguson was having none of English trying to have a bob-each-way and put to him a simple question; did the National Party have a moral mandate to be the leading party of government?

To which English could only reply:

“ We accept, like everybody else should, that’s its a legitimate result of MMP. No contest about that. That’s how the rules work, we all knew that.”

“ We are the dominant select committee party and we’re not the government, and that is going to make a difference to how everything runs.

It’s not our job to make this place run for an incoming government that’s a minority.

Remember this, we are the opposition with a minority government, it’s a term the media don’t use but you’ll get to understand that it is a minority government with a majority opposition and the Greens as the support party, and that’s how we’re going to run it.”

The constant reference to “minority government” and National being the “dominant party” carries on the narrative being run by English’s party strategists; that this new coalition is a “minority” (it’s not); that National was denied it’s rightful position as government (it wasn’t); and that the election results were somehow “stolen” (not true).

Which, of course, would have suited National perfectly. The Nats have already destroyed two political parties (United Future and Maori Party) and neutered a third (ACT). Another notch on their belt would not have concerned them greatly.

Indeed, look on National as the Planet Jupiter – drawing in debris such as asteroids and comets with it’s massive gravitational field; effectively “scouring” the solar system of small objects.

National draws in smaller parties with it’s massive political-gravitational pull, and consumes them.

No wonder the Green Party exercised caution and ensured their trajectory carried them safely away from National’s crushing embrace. A “Teal Coalition” would have torn apart the Greens as effectively as Jupiter smashed Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 in 1994.

But if English and his cronies in Her Majesty’s ‘Loyal’ Opposition believe that “it’s not our job to make this place run for an incoming government that’s a minority” – then they had best tread carefully.

The voting public are not all gullible fools and they do take notice.

As does the media.

On 9 November and 10 November, Fairfax media ran two consecutive editorials on the incoming coalition government and National’s role as Parliament’s newest Opposition.

“ Oppositions whose sole aim is to sabotage the government, however, risk alienating the voters. In the United States, the Republican Party repeatedly tried to shut down the government altogether by denying it the money it needs to function.

The long-term risk is that this strategy will be tried by the other side when the roles are switched. The result could be the kind of paralysis of government too often seen in the United States. Oppositions don’t gain in the long term by making the country ungovernable.

In New Zealand, there is also a strong tradition of giving a new government a “fair go”. Voters traditionally allow some leeway, and even grant it a kind of temporary political honeymoon…”

The bad news is that the Labour government has endorsed the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, with the suspension of a limited range of items, at the ministerial and leaders’ meetings in Da Nang, Viet Nam.

The good news is that the meeting failed to conclude the new deal – rebranded the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). There are four outstanding issues. The Canadian government of Trudeau – also elected after the deal was concluded by its predecessor – said it was not going to be rushed into a decision that would have a major impact on its future. Yay, Canada. Why couldn’t the Ardern government do the same?

The ministerial statement released by the TPPA-11 has a catchy new branding for the deal: the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). No easy slogans there! But isn’t it interesting how something so toxic can simply be relabelled ‘progressive’?

The annex lists the provisions being suspended, pending any future re-entry by the US. Toxic items remain in almost every chapter, even if some of the worst are suspended. Their mere presence ensures they will resurface in future agreements. Japan has already proposed some of them in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).

I matched the list against the texts. The biggest relief will be for Pharmac – although the spectre of the US returning remains a threat and those suspended measures will resurface elsewhere.

There is no change to the pro-investor rules or the core investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism. A provision that would allow foreign investors to use the TPPA’s ISDS mechanism to enforce contracts for infrastructure or natural resources has been suspended, as has the ability to challenge measures affecting certain financial investments. But investors can still use ISDS to enforce their special rights under the investment chapter, and the delegitimised ISDS process remains intact.

Other chapters that will have sweeping impacts in the future, including the electronic commerce chapter I blogged about last week and the novel annex that requires state-owned enterprises to be purely commercial and not ‘buy Kiwi’, remain unchanged. Future governments will face serious handcuffs in regulating foreign investors and requiring them to process timber or other resources here. These chapters have potential impacts for Kiwibuild and the forestry sector, a digital economy, and the ability to regulate and tax the likes of Amazon.

So, what happens now? There is no timeline for the next meeting of the CPTPP parties. That means there is now time for the new government to conduct in-depth consultations over its proposal to adopt the deal. It also needs to commission the robust analysis that Labour called for in opposition, independent of MFAT and consultants like the NZIER who basically rubber stamped the previous shonky modelling. They need to make sure it uses realistic models that also cover the broader economic implications, especially for jobs and income distribution. If the economics don’t stack up, as Labour said they didn’t with the original TPPA-12, then they have no basis for arguing that the CPTPP should proceed. Their independent review also needs to include non-economic impacts on environment, health, human rights and the Treaty of Waitangi.

But before it does that work to advance a deal they previously refused to ratify, the new government needs to give priority to its proposed full and participatory review of trade policy. All existing and future negotiations must be frozen until that is done.

It’s not over yet. I don’t want to jump the gun. There will be more attempts to pull it off today.

The most helpful thing for now is to encourage people to tweet to the Canadians. Message from the Council for Canadians:

“We need your help in the next 24 hours to stop the TPP. Because from what we hear, its not quite over yet.

The Japanese PM Abe is now trying to pressure Canada to finalise the agreement whilst they are in Vietnam. Can you please help us in tweeting PM Trudeau, Canadian Trade Minister and the Canadian Foreign Minister.

It will help to highlight Canada both in applauding them but also in ensuring that they maintain their current positions and to not bend under pressure from the other TPP countries.

Canada refused to sign on at the last minute due to concerns around labour rights, Indigenous rights, cultural issues and gender equality.

Asking them to maintain their position on the #TPP and put culture, indigenous rights, women’s rights, and labour rights ahead of corporate interests.

“THEY’RE THE ENGINE ROOM where ministerial decisions are put through the mill by officials.” In that single sentence, the very worst aspects of neoliberalism are laid bare. It’s author, political journalist Stacey Kirk, like so many of her generation, have been taught to regard politicians as, at best, necessary evils. Accordingly, Cabinet Committees – the “engine rooms” of government – are held up as the necessary correctives to poorly conceived “ministerial decisions”. Places where the ideas of elected politicians get knocked into a shape acceptable to their unelected “officials” – New Zealand’s only trustworthy wielders of political power.

Kirk’s story, inspired by Opposition criticism of the new government’s apparent willingness to be guided by – and act on – its own advice, plays directly to the crucial neoliberal concept of “governance”. At its core, governance represents the idea that the policies of both local and national government, if they are to meet the fundamental test of effective and efficient public administration, must be professionally crafted and implemented. By this reckoning, the ill-informed amateurism of elected politicians poses a constant threat to the delivery of “good” governance. Which is why “officials” putting “ministerial decisions” through “the mill” is presented not as an affront to democracy, but a very good idea.

Essentially, Kirk ranges herself alongside the Sir Humphrey Appleby character from the celebrated British television series, Yes Minister. Sir Humphrey represents the haughty mandarinate of the Civil Service: the ones who regard themselves as the guardians of the State’s permanent interests. Ever on the alert against the obsessions and enthusiasms of reforming politicians, Sir Humphrey and his colleagues are constantly manoeuvring to thwart the pet projects of their ministers.

In its day, Yes Minister was conceived of – and certainly became – a primer for the “free market” reforms of Margaret Thatcher. The senior civil service of 1980s Britain was depicted as dangerously protective of the fast-decaying post-World War II Keynesian settlement. Yes Minister’s key message was, therefore, that the British people needed to elect ideologically-driven politicians who knew their own minds, and could not be swayed by the blandishments of Machiavellian bureaucrats like Sir Humphrey.

In the case of New Zealand, however, the neoliberal revolution was not carried through by ideologically-driven politicians (as happened in the UK and the USA) but by ideologically-driven bureaucrats in the New Zealand Treasury and, to a lesser extent, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. It was these civil servants who radicalised the political leadership of the Labour Party and placed in the hands of David Lange’s government the carefully prepared economic reform package that would later become known as “Rogernomics”. (The book-sized briefing document, dubbed ‘Economic Management’, can still be found on the shelves of your local public library.)

As the product of a “top-down” economic and social revolution, New Zealand Neoliberalism – far from needing to rein-in the powers of the civil-service mandarinate – was determined to re-fashion the state bureaucracy in such a way that it would be able to resist any and all attempts by elected politicians – and their parties – to dismantle the neoliberal system.

In this regard, the concept of “governance” was crucial. Policy had to become the more-or-less exclusive province of highly-trained professionals. Men and women, thoroughly schooled in the neoliberal ideology, who could intercept and demolish any attempt by politicians – especially those of the Left – to advance an alternative economic and social agenda.

In effect, the whole idea of a democratically-elected government, empowered by the electorate to implement its party’s – or parties’ – manifesto/s, is presented as a dangerous threat to the effective and efficient management of public affairs. Lip-service has to be paid to democratic principles, of course, but all governance-oriented politicians understand that Steve Maharey’s infamous formula: “That’s just the sort of thing you say in Opposition, and then forget about in Government”, continues to describe the true condition of our democracy.

None of which should be construed as an argument for doing away with the civil service. Highly-educated and experienced civil servants will always be needed to provide the policies of elected politicians with effective and efficient delivery mechanisms. Free and frank advice to ministers will always constitute a vital aspect of testing and refining policy ideas. What is most definitely not needed, however, is a civil service comprised of neoliberal cadres: bureaucrats who are, first and foremost, loyal to an ideological system which is absolutely antithetical to the whole notion of “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” New Zealand urgently needs to get rid of this neoliberal priesthood.

Rather than question Jacinda Ardern’s government for spending too little time in the “engine rooms”, Stacey Kirk should, perhaps, cast a critical eye over the legislative mechanisms which preserve the neoliberal ascendancy in New Zealand’s civil service. The State Sector Act, the Public Finance Act and the Reserve Bank Act: all provide the statutory obstacles that render effective, politician-led change so exceedingly difficult in this country.

If our new Cabinet Ministers are working independently of their “officials”, then that is not, automatically, a bad thing. On the contrary, in a democracy: the spectacle of officials working for politicians, who are, in their turn, working for the people; offers welcome proof that the system is working exactly as it should!

Surely, the “engine room” of any government is the place where the policies promised to the people by their elected leaders are connected to the machinery of the state by its loyal civil servants – and set in motion.

On 31 October 2017, the Whale Oil website posted a Newshub article featuring a photo of the First Secretary of the Iranian Embassy, Hormoz Ghahremani, below the headline: Complaints laid about Iranian hate speech diplomat. Beneath the photo can be seen a video of a meeting at which Ghahremani was the first guest speaker. A casual visitor to the website might be excused for believing that the Iranian Embassy’s First Secretary was guilty of Holocaust denial.

Another speaker at the meeting did, later, question the history of the Nazi Holocaust. However, the article quotes New Zealand historian Professor Paul Moon as saying that diplomats from Iran were “talking about Jewish conspiracies, describing Israel as a cancer that needs to be removed, denying the holocaust”. It should have been made clear that at no point in Hormoz Ghahremani’s speech was there the slightest hint of Holocaust denial. The website also reported Moon as saying that Hormoz Ghahremani, talking about terrorism in the Middle East, made “accusations that . . . somehow the Jews were responsible for terrorism.” This is completely untrue, as the video can prove.

Reference to Jews

The only reference Ghahremani made to Jews was when he said:

“We believe that the only stable solution to the crisis in Palestine is, putting an end to the Occupation, returning of all Palestinian refugees to their homeland, and allowing Palestinians to decide on their country’s future through democratic referendum by respecting the rights of the Muslims, Jews and Christians.”

In an interview with Newshub, Mr Ghahremani thanked the New Zealand Government for playing an active role in co-sponsoring UN Security Council Resolution 2334, which condemns Israel’s illegal Occupation settlement policy.

While Israel calls itself a Jewish state, many see it as a state that identifies more with its founding ideology. The signatories to Israel’s 1948 Declaration of Independence, identified themselves thus:

“. . . We members of the People’s Council, representatives of the Jewish Community of Eretz-Israel and of the Zionist movement . . .”

Zionism holds that hostility to Jews is inevitable and that Jews can only be secure through the creation of a Jewish state. So instead of fighting to put an end to all political racism, the ideology resigns itself to what it believes is the inevitability of endless hatred towards Jews. In the process of achieving its territorial ambitions, the Zionist state constantly violates the Fourth Geneva Convention. The result is an intolerable daily toll upon Palestinian life, limb, liberty and property. Not surprisingly, Israel’s claim, that its actions are on behalf of world Jewry, is received by Jews opposed to Zionism as a grievous insult. The promoters of Zionism are keen to make all opposition to their ideology appear to be anti-Semitic. Unfortunately, many non-Jews are taken in by this and tiptoe around the issue of Palestinian human rights.

“For all its brevity, Balfour’s Declaration was sufficiently nuanced in its assessment of the national status of different groups in the region to make it clear that it aimed to do what was morally right rather than politically expedient . . .”

The Zionist view that the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is ‘morally right’ is exemplified by Israel’s Law of Return which enables immigrants from Europe and the United States, who have never had any connection with Palestine, to dispossess the Palestinian people. On the other hand, compounding this injustice, Israel refuses to respect the right of return of Palestinian refugees, which is recognised in international law. The Israel Institute of New Zealand would applaud Paul Moon’s justification of Zionist ethnic cleansing. He writes:

“It was Balfour’s intention that the Jewish people – who were indigenous to Palestine – would have a “national home”, while more recent occupiers of the territory were classed as “communities”, and thus could have religious and civil rights, but could not claim the same sovereign status in Palestine.”

To put it plainly, the ideology reduces the population of Palestine to the status of “more recent occupiers of the territory” in order to give precedence to settlers from Europe and the United States.

Fawning over British imperialism

Paul Moon tell us that “Britain had confirmed the undeniable right to Jewish sovereignty in Palestine”. His only criticism of Britain is that it failed to enforce the injustice with sufficient force and alacrity. This blind belief that Britain had the moral authority to override the native population’s right to sovereignty belongs to a darker past. Moon lectures us that “Israel has emerged triumphantly as a modern, sophisticated, egalitarian, liberal democracy, much like our own.” The truth is that Israel, unlike New Zealand, refuses even to define its borders. The Zionist state introduced nuclear weapons to the Middle East and refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation agreement. Israel has been forced to apologise for sending its spies to this country in an attempt to fraudulently obtain New Zealand passports. The mission failed and the spies were put on trial and imprisoned here. This unfriendly behaviour was reflected again when Israel reacted to New Zealand’s sponsoring of UNSCR 2334 by describing it as a “declaration of war”.

Paul Moon asserts that Israel is a democracy ‘much like’ New Zealand but New Zealand strives to conduct its affairs in accordance with international law, whereas Israel has a history that demonstrates quite the opposite.

In 1980, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 476, which reaffirmed an earlier UN call for Israel to end its 1967 occupation of Palestinian land. The Resolution confirmed that none of the legislative and administrative measures taken by Israel has legal validity and that they all constitute flagrant violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The 9 July 2004 International Court of Justice ruling on the illegality of Israel’s Wall in East Jerusalem and other areas of the West Bank confirmed this.

Holocaust denial

Holocaust denial is often inspired by racism but ignorance also plays a part. The scourge of Nazism was the most horrific state-sponsored tragedy in modern history. Evidence for that is overwhelming; a re-broadcast TV series, World at War (available on DVD), with voice-over by Sir Laurence Olivier, was a recent grim reminder, viewable in New Zealand. While Nazism targeted many races and minorities, Jews were its main obsession. To this day, most people do not despise Germans for the Holocaust, realising that people can so easily be brainwashed, even for long periods, by ideological propaganda. All the more credit then to the wonderful heroism of those Germans who resisted Nazism and risked their own lives and those of their families to shelter Jews from the Nazis.

Resisting ideology

A group calling itself Righteous Jews (http://righteousjews.org/) that established itself in 2003 felt that it was a way for its members

“to commemorate the memory of those Palestinians who have been, and continue to be depopulated, dispossessed, humiliated, tortured, and murdered in the name of political Zionism and its quest to create a Jewish state in the lands between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River.”

Righteous Jews tells us that its founding was inspired by the website of the Holocaust Museum at Yad Vashem, located on Mount Herzl on the land of the Palestinian village of Ein Karem, 1400 metres south of the ethnically-cleansed Palestinian village of Deir Yassin. Yad Vashem lists the names of non-Jews who risked their lives, freedom and safety in order to rescue one or several Jews from the threat of death or deportation to death camps. For many years, this list was referred to as the list of ‘Righteous Gentiles’ and is now called ‘Righteous Among the Nations’. According to Righteous Jews:

“Deir Yassin is as important a part of Jewish, as it is of Palestinian, history. Deir Yassin, coming in April 1948, just three years after the liberation of Auschwitz in January 1945, marks a Jewish transition from enslavement to empowerment and from abused to abuser. Can there ever have been such a remarkable shift, over such a short period, in the history of a people?

“Deir Yassin signalled the ethnic cleansing of 750,000 Palestinians, leading to their eventual dispossession and exile and was just one example of a conscious and premeditated plan to destroy the Palestinians as a people in their own homeland.

“ . . . since the establishment of the state of Israel, successive Israeli governments, whether Labour or Likud, and whether by force as at Deir Yassin, or by chicanery as at Oslo and Camp David, have followed the same policy of oppressing and dispossessing Palestinians to make way for an exclusively Jewish state. Even now, when Israel could have peace and security for the asking, Israeli governments persist in their original intention of conquering the whole of Palestine for the use of the Jewish people alone. And all this was done, and is still being done, by Jews, for Jews and in the name of Jews.”

The group lists, among the many people it calls ‘Our Initial List of Righteous Jews’, Albert Einstein, Amira Hass, Anna Baltzer, Antony Loewenstein, Gideon Levy, the late Hedy Epstein, Ilan Pappe, Jeff Halper, Jennifer Lowenstein, Lenni Brenner, Miko Peled, Norman Finkelstein, Richard Falk, Tanya Reinhart and the late Yehudi Menuhin. All have worked to expose the evils of the practise and ideology of political Zionism.

Elizabeth Morley (several of whose relatives died in the Holocaust) of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign in Aberystwyth, Wales, wrote the following to a pro-Zionist UK MP:

“Is it not ironic that millions of Jews from all around the world are invited to claim Israeli citizenship, even if they end up, not in Israel, but in an illegal settlement on Palestinian land? With my Jewish heritage I too could claim Israeli citizenship. How ridiculous is that!

“Although I have a good life here in the UK I could go over there and make use of the privileges that are denied to the Palestinians whose land I would be occupying. I might even be given the house and possessions of a Palestinian family freshly displaced from East Jerusalem. And all the time the Palestinian refugees, turfed out to make room for me and millions like me, are mouldering in refugee camps.”

Speak truth to power

It is right and necessary that Holocaust denial, along with all forms of misleading, racist propaganda, be challenged, preferably through the presentation of the verifiable evidence to the contrary that is so easily accessible. But when the Zionist Lobby makes use of the Holocaust to divert attention away from Israel’s violations of international law, that also must be challenged. Unrestrained political Zionism threatens the very survival of the tragically hard-won Fourth Geneva Convention and undermines the principle of respect for international humanitarian law. For too long, our political leaders and spokespersons have avoided calling Israel to account. Surrendering reason to ideology brings nothing but tragedy. New Zealand’s sponsorship of UNSCR 2334 should signal a determined change of heart and direction – and greater hope for humanity.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/11/11/beyond-whaleoil-and-accusations-of-holocaust-denial/feed/8Why New Zealand Is REALLY Under Pressure Over Russian Trade From Atlanticists With An Agendahttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/11/10/why-new-zealand-is-really-under-pressure-over-russian-trade-from-atlanticists-with-an-agenda/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/11/10/why-new-zealand-is-really-under-pressure-over-russian-trade-from-atlanticists-with-an-agenda/#commentsThu, 09 Nov 2017 20:59:39 +0000https://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=94047

Well this is interesting, isn’t it. No sooner does New Zealand start talking openly about pursuing a trade policy that is more independent of the Atlanticist E.U.-American block, than the threats start being issued unto us by their diplomats and local mouthpieces; with pliant domestic (yet invariably foreign-owned) media haplessly buying into the hysteria.

If this were your only source of information on the subject, you could be forgiven for presuming that New Zealand’s push for closer economic relations with the Russian Federation was some sort of conspiratorial effort that had been a closely guarded secret – the result of clandestine influence-peddling by a Russian ambassador meeting with the man who’s now NZ’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister earlier this year.

And which is seemingly set to usher in a serious crisis for little old New Zealand as our more ‘traditional’ trade “partners” and “allies” gear up to turn their backs upon us as we shun their incipient “good-will”.

But all of this is so completely and utterly fictional I’m almost surprised it wasn’t accompanied by a breathless set of claims that Putin somehow *personally* hacked our recent Election. It’s simply that far fetched.

Let us examine the allegations being made here one by one – and in so doing help to shine a light on what’s REALLY going on here.

The first ‘odd contention’ in this article is that the trade-push is somehow an “unheralded policy” which was not talked about prior to the Election, and was largely unknown even as recently as last week – being sprung out in such a manner as to suggest something untoward or unpalatable was afoot.

This is manifestly false. New Zealand First has been continuously raising the serious issue of our country being locked out of one of the largest beef and dairy markets on Earth [heading for second largest and already second largest, respectively] over a pretty substantial swathe of the previous Parliamentary Term; issuing numerous press releases, asking Questions of the Government in Parliament, and engaging in other political efforts to try and get some traction of the issue for much of the last three years.

Indeed, I even wrote an article on exactly this matter some weeks ago – openly posing the question before the results of coalition negotiations were even a blip on the horizon, as to whether New Zealand First regardless of their choice of coalition partner [the more globalist-neoliberalist inclined National Party; or the somewhat better social-democratic-with-neoliberalist-characteristics Labour Party] might be able to effectively secure progress on this long-standing area of concern.

Or, in other words – if New Zealand “journalists” truly believe that this is an “unheralded policy”, it can only be because they have neglected to pay anything even loosely resembling proper attention to the course of Parliamentary politics in this country for the last three years and longer.

The second ‘big’ claim made in the article – on both an implicit and outright explicit level – is that the further pursuit of warmer economic relations with the Russian Federation will somehow be disastrous, as it risks imperiling our extant trade with the European Union.

And, to be sure, the figure of some twenty billion dollars per year in NZ-EU trade does sound mighty impressive as compared to the $417 million we did in 2016 with Russia.

Except let’s take a closer look at those figures. The first, of course, being that it’s hardly fair to compare our trade with a country we have foolishly been subjecting to substantial trade-sanctions for some years now [i.e. Russia] with a trading-bloc we’ve poured every possible effort into securing stronger economic interchange with pretty much for as long as I’ve been alive. If we HADN’T had Russia under sanction over this period, and had instead been more amicable to the aforementioned 2nd largest importer of dairy products [our key export, apparently] … I do not feel at all questionable in outright stating, we would most certainly be trading billions of dollars more in their direction.

Or, in other words – regardless of what the European Union thinks, we are very shortly set to deal directly with our largest constituent market over there WITHOUT the ongoing interference of Brussels or French farmers … and do so in such a manner that we will once again be gaining billions of dollars worth of trade in addition to what we already have in that direction.

Meanwhile, while the European Union can huff and puff and threaten all it likes that it will continue to defer New Zealand’s hoped-for Free Trade Deal with the E.U. – the plain fact of the matter is that they have done exactly this pantomime act of dragging their heals in response to New Zealand’s ongoing efforts to gain better access to their market for some decades now. And with ‘good’ [from their perspective, at least] reason.

Our agricultural produce is simply of such quality and low relative price that the extant suppliers of the domestic market they seek to protect from our superior output will NEVER concede to ‘going quietly’ on allowing our exports in unmolested. In exactly the same manner that America almost invariably balks at including agricultural produce in the various Free Trade instruments that it occasionally feigns interest in such as the T.P.P.A.

Or, phrased another way – the European Union had no interest in ‘playing nice’ with New Zealand on trade policy up until they became worried that they’d lose out due to both us and a key trading partner of everybody involved going elsewhere first.

I therefore take these posturing European Union diplomat statements about how they’ll view our efforts with Russia in a “very negative” light as the tantrums of a toddler-state conglomerate rather than a serious commentary about likely future prospects.

If the European Union never intended to give us a fair Free Trade Agreement, and particularly in a reasonable timescale – then we have lost absolutely nothing by pursuing better associations with other markets in possession of vastly more growth potential for us, in the mean-time.

And if they WERE serious about suddenly caving to inevitability as applies greater economic interchange with New Zealand – then this is a position they have had to be browbeaten into by a combination of one of their largest constituent markets going elsewhere, and New Zealand looking to join it.

Which means that our own movements toward warmer economic interplay with Russia will have a positive and spurring effect upon our trade relations with Europe as they bend over backwards to attempt to entice us ‘back’ into “their” sphere of influence/suzerainty with promises of shiny export-dollars.

To state it plainly – despite the rather undiplomatic rhetoric from E.U. Ambassador Bernard Savage [which was judged a sufficient faux-pas as to be being backed away from by the E.U. Embassy here later in the week], we here in New Zealand have almost certainly lost nothing as applies the E.U. from pursuing better relations with Russia – and instead, may yet gain, as a result, capaciously from them in this area through our subtle and canny approach to realpolitik on trade.

The third prong of this bizarre [yet in retrospect, entirely expectable] full-frontal fact-free assault upon New Zealand pursuing an independent foreign policy on the global, geopolitical stage comes from none other than the loudest NeoCon mouth-piece presently given air-time in our media and academic spheres today. A professor of International Relations at Auckland University by the name of Stephen Hoadley, whom I’ve formerly had the displeasure of being lectured by back when I was an UnderGrad at the same institution [as an aside, another of my former International Relations lecturers – Dr Jian Yang – is presently *also* coming to prominence as the ‘potential’ agent of a foreign power within our politics … leading me to question whether there’s a puppet-string hidden under seemingly every moss-encrusted rock one cares to turn over on the economic right of our politics these days].

He further absolutely recoils from the thought of anybody using the term “imperialism” to describe the modus operandi and ultimate goals of American actions on the international stage; instead insisting that “analysts” basically polymorph into (geo-)political PR spinners for the latter-day American Empire; lest people speaking frankly and accurately about the ambit of American policy trigger serious resistance to same.

Or, in other words, when it comes to the worth of Associate Professor Hoadley’s opinion on a matter of a country choosing to act in its own interest rather than towing the Atlanticist ‘party-line’ … anyone acquainted with the corpus of his work can immediately see that it is best understood as being printed on two-ply – and for the American sphincter.

His ‘concerns’ about us not standing in absolutely slavish ‘solidarity’ with “like minded Western countries” are pretty much exactly the same as the ones he (and others like him) put forward to attempt to push New Zealand into getting involved with various American military adventurism in the Middle East over the course of the last decade and a half. Their arguments have always been that it is apparently impossible for us to remain on amicable terms with other countries if we offer even the slightest bit of actual substantial criticism of their respective foreign policies; or refuse to “pay the price” of “friendship” by putting New Zealand bodies on the line in THEIR fights overseas.

There’s a term for the sort of sustained interaction wherein continued good-treatment is conditional upon the exchange of bodies and money … and it CERTAINLY isn’t “friendship”.

But did any of these ‘bleeding heart Neocons’ protest about New Zealand seeking closer economic relations with America at the very same time as the latter was engaged carrying out an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation?

Of course they didn’t!

Because their sentiments on these matters – in this case, their apparent trenchant objections to New Zealand chartering an independent course on matters economic – are not actually “ethically” based. Nor are they even, really, “economic”.

Rather, they are solely concerned with the great dance of Geopolitics. And in service of that agenda, men like Hoadley or this European Union Ambassador will deploy almost any form of rhetoric or other inducements in order to keep ‘their’ puppet-countries and client-states sitting on the “right” side of the table.

Still, it’s not like the forces arrayed against New Zealand pursuing an independent foreign policy and lucrative trade opportunities are exclusively external, either. As we can see from the article, our very own [Inter] National Party has also lined up to take pot-shots at our new Government’s incipient new direction.

To put it bluntly, there is simply no equivalency to be made between the NZF-Labour Government seeking a trade-deal with Russia … and the National Party who formed our previous Government outright baying to partake of an illegal war alongside the Americans – even if, as it now turns out, there was the potential inducement of a trade deal with the Americans on the table at the time.

Indeed, I read the situation entirely differently. Namely, that Winston – as arguably our best Foreign Minister in decades, during his previous tenure in the role – was keeping an ear to the ground and diligently fact-finding for his efforts in Parliament on trade policy, particularly as pertains Russia … whilst Brownlee, by not meeting on even a single occasion with the Russian Ambassador over the entire course of his time as Foreign Minister, was engaged in a SERIOUS dereliction of duty!

With that in mind, it is a shameful thing indeed that Brownlee has attempted to turn his laziness into an assumed “virtue” in this regard .

To sum up, then – it does indeed appear that there is something of a ‘shift in the wind’ in both New Zealand’s foreign policy, as well as the Geopolitical ‘game’ more generally. The trade winds are now blowing to the East, whilst naught but ‘hot air’ and the whiff of sulfur appears to emanate from the ‘Old Empires’ on either side of the Atlantic.

New Zealand has, for the longest time, attempted to maintain cordial relations with the European Union and America in the vaguest, vainest hopes that we might one day be able to be treated with fairness and dignity by either economic unit on matters of foreign and trade policy.

Thus far, our hopes have largely proven futile – and after some decades of waiting upon an improvement in either situation, it now appears that our national patience has worn seriously thin.

At the same time, we have found ourselves confronted with a serious opportunity in the form of a resurgently prominent Russia; and it would appear on the face of it that there are no onerous demands for our militarized loyalty or diplomatic posturing being placed upon us by this Great Power in exchange for trade. This is, obviously, in rather direct contrast to both the E.U. and the US – and *especially* the pair of them together.

The absolute furore from a number of quarters over the prospect that New Zealand might once again take back control of our own economic and geopolitical destiny … rather than endlessly sitting on the sidelines hoping against hope to be picked for fair play … is thus absolutely terrifying to the mandarins and the mouthpieces in each of the Atlanticist centers of power.

Because, put quite simply, it represents the tangible new reality that they are no longer in control of events and other places.

And that their time as would-be charlatan Chakravartins is rather swiftly drawing to a close.

Good Riddance. And disregard the shamelessly perfidious ‘talking heads’ who dare to say otherwise.

As we enter into the incoming Age of Multipolarity, New Zealand is already set to do very well by remaining *well* ahead of the curve.

Bosses and their paid servants in the so-called economics “profession” are already screaming about the proposed minimum wage hike in New Zealand to $20 an hour by April 2021.

Most of their objections amount to the repetition of dogma which they want us to believe is some sort of science. Usually, very few facts are ever advanced to support their views.

Branko Marcetic writing on Spinoff website has done a good refutation of the arguments against minimum wage rises by drawing on the international evidence, including real examples from the U.S. I want to look at what actually happened in New Zealand when we had a similar percentage minimum wage rise over a similar period, from 2004 to 2008. As unwelcome as they are to right-wing dogmatists, let’s look at some facts.

Labour was elected in 1999 with the adult minimum wage at $7 per hour and a youth rate of $4.20 per hour applying to those under 20. There were some modest increases for the next few years and the youth rate age of eligibility reduced to apply only to those under 18.

In 2004, the adult rate was $9 per hour and the youth rate $7.20. This was increased to $12 and $9.60 over the next four years – an increase of 33 per cent. Inflation during that period was 12.5 per cent, so there was an increase in the real value of the minimum wage. There was also an increase in its relative value: rising from 45.4 per cent to 50.6 per cent of the average wage. When it reached this level, then-Prime Minister Helen Clarke said she was “comfortable” with the level reached and would seek to maintain it at that level rather than increase it.

The National Party was elected in 2008 and it has largely kept the minimum wage at its 2008 level, relative to the average wage, though by April 2017 there was a small increase to 52.7 per cent of the average wage.

The previous National government had not increased the minimum wage once (except for one year in 1996 when Winston Peters was in coalition with them). When it was elected in 2008, we did not know what this National government was going to do. In fact, they chose to increase it each year. There was even some grumbling behind the scenes from some bosses friendly to the party.

During the election campaign in 2008, Unite Union launched a campaign for an immediate lift of the minimum wage from $12 to $15 an hour. When National won office, they faced a massive public education campaign and petition. We collected 200,000 signatures! We had stalls, banners, speakouts at every festival, sports games and community events over the course of the year following.

Opinion polls showed two out of three people supported us. We were front page news in daily newspapers.

I don’t know if Unite’s campaign was necessary or not to make National continue with annual minimum wage increases. But I am absolutely sure that the size of the increases were bigger than would have been the case without the campaign. At the very least, the value of the minimum wage would have fallen rather than risen.

The agreement to lift the level to $20 by April 2021 will increase the adult rate from $15.75 to $20 an hour over four years. That is an increase of 27 per cent – a bit less than the 33 per cent increase from 2004 to 2008. The right-wing commentators at that time predicted doom and were proved wrong.

Here are some other economic statistics for the same period – April 2004 to April 2008.

The unemployment rate declined from 4.7 per cent to 4.2 per cent.

The Labour force participation rate increased from 66.7 per cent to 67.7 per cent

Youth unemployment and participation rates were almost unchanged.

Inflation averaged 3 per cent a year while the minimum wage increase averaged over 8 per cent a year.

Some of the biggest increases in the minimum wage have occurred for young workers. In 2001, 18- and 19-year-olds were put on the adult rate. By 2005 their rate had more than doubled from $4.55 an hour to $9.50 an hour.

Were young people priced out of the labour market as the dogmatists assured us would happen? No, in fact, the opposite happened. Employment for this group increased overall and unemployment dropped.

According to the Household Labour Force Survey, during that period from the March quarter 2001 to the March quarter 2005, employment of 15-19-year-olds increased from 120,600 to 140,600; unemployment declined from 26,300 to 23,800 and the unemployment rate declined from 18.7 percent to 14.5 percent. The overall labour force participation rate for 15-19-year-olds increased from 51.2 to 54.3 percent. Right-wing commentators at the time simply changed course and argued that the minimum wage was too high for young people because it was encouraging them to go and get jobs!

These facts will not prevent dogmatists like those who write for the extreme right-wing economic think tanks and commentators from predicting more doom and gloom. The New Zealand Initiative is the most prominent think tank in New Zealand advocating these views.

The economic principles these groups espouse derive from a fundamentalist brand of economic thought that actually opposes any minimum wage as an interference with the free market. The free market, in their view of the world, has an extraordinary ability to only deliver positive outcomes at all times – so long as we don’t interfere. The Act Party is their ideological advocate in parliament.

This is a religion and not a science. Their views should be treated with the same respect that is given to Brian Tamaki’s views on sexuality – they are nothing but ignorant bigots. The economists only differ from Brian Tamaki because they have a degree conferred on them by other ignorant bigots who run the academic economics “profession” worldwide.

When the media report their comments it should come with a health warning: “The New Zealand Institute does not use facts to support their argument – they appeal a god called ‘the market’ to justify their views.”

Take a look at this rather typical article by the New Zealand Initiatives’s Roger Partridge in the National Business Review attacking the planned minimum wage hike headed ‘Magical thinking doesn’t lift wages‘. “It is magical thinking to believe that we can make the poor better off by simply legislating substantial increases in the minimum wage.” Really? What about 2004-2008 in New Zealand? The writer does not need to point to a real-life example. His proof comes next: “Labour markets work like other markets. Put up the price and demand will decrease.” That is not proof. That is dogma!

Roger Partridge then quotes another dogmatist from his own institute for further proof in the form of the NZ Initiative’s Eric Crampton. He doesn’t actually quote any facts, either; he simply quotes the estimates done by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, the government ministry responsible for preparing reports over possible economic impacts of minimum wage rises. The problem with the MBIE estimates is that they are done by economists trained in the same religious dogma; consequently, they predict automatic increases in unemployment for each additional increase in the minimum wage.

“The estimates of constraint on job growth are based on a neo-classical model of firm decision-making, whereby firms operating in perfectly competitive markets adjust output and inputs, including labour, in response to relative prices. This modelling approach does not adequately reflect the dynamic nature of employment responses to changes in minimum wages, and, in particular, any investments that employers may make to increase the productivity of low paid workers. One consideration for the impact on the demand for low wage workers is how minimum wages change relative to average wages. If minimum wages keep pace with average wages then we would expect to see little change in the relative demand for low wage workers or low wage jobs.”

As I commented then: “Instead of using a model for an economy that does not exist, we can use the actual changes that have occurred in New Zealand.”

The problem is that the “neo-classical model” has blown up all over the world and not even major institutions that have defended it for decades even pretend to believe in it anymore. However, the minimum wage rise being proposed is a significant increase and will continue to meet strong opposition. Any increase in unemployment will be blamed on the minimum wage. The continuing problems around youth employment will be blamed on the planned abolition of a separate lower youth or training rate.

The union movement, in particular, needs to continue to campaign to make the minimum wage a living wage. We must win the economic arguments and debunk the fear-mongers.

New Zealand already has one of the highest minimum wages relative to the average wage in the OECD – the club of the most advanced capitalist countries. Yet we actually have one of the lowest official unemployment rates. We have pushed further in the past on the minimum wage; for example, in the early to mid-1970s under a previous Labour-led government, the minimum wage was 66 per cent of the average wage.

Reaching $20 an hour by April 1921 will actually take us much closer to our goal of a living wage equal to the living wage, which is around 66 per cent of the average wage.

That is why it is dangerous for some left-wing commentators to simply dismiss the increases planned as being of no significance. An example of this is my friend Daphna Whitmore on Redline. She dismisses the minimum wage rise as “not a seismic shift”. She continues, “The minimum wage has risen every year for over a decade, mostly pushed by union and community campaigns for a living wage. Despite talk of the new coalition [government] being a ‘change government’, the Labour [Party]-led team will have boosted the lowest-paid workers a mere 25 cents an hour more than the National government likely would have. The living wage remains, as ever, postponed. If by 2021 the minimum wage is $20 an hour, it is unlikely to be a living wage with costs rising in the interim.”

In my view, the constant repetition of a ‘glass half full’ analysis is not actually useful. Facts are useful sometimes – even for left-wing commentators.

The minimum wage has actually been increased every year for 18 years. The increases have taken it from 40 per cent of the average wage to 53 per cent today. This was a victory for campaigns like those run by the Unite Union and others.

By 2021, I estimate that the minimum wage will have gone from 53 per cent of the average wage to 61.5 per cent of the average wage, after allowing for average wage movement over the next four years similar to what has occurred over the last four.

Rather than “postponing” the living wage, this will bring us within sight. The living wage calculation today is approximately 66 per cent of the average wage. It is being implemented immediately by the new government for all directly-employed staff and then for contractors to the government in the future. This is also significant. It is not being “postponed”.

Because it is a significant change that will make a real difference in the lives of hundreds of thousands of workers, this will continue to be a contested area for the class struggle. Ignorance won’t help our side win.

Demonstrate your support for cannabis law reform, on the ninetieth anniversary of cannabis prohibition, at our protests in Auckland and Wellington.

Saturday 11th November 2017 marks ninety years of cannabis Prohibition in New Zealand, with the passage of the Dangerous Drugs Act on that day in 1927.

That law was designed to stamp out access to medical cannabis, as well as industrial hemp and all adult use. It was the start of our very own War on Drugs, and we beat the USA by ten years.

The origins of our drug war were, of course, racist. Our very first drug law banned the use of alcohol by Maori. Pakeha were still allowed to sell it to them, and did. Like other drug laws that followed, this was used to harass and oppress a minority population.

Our second drug law banned the use of Opium by Chinese people. Anyone else could still use it.

Our third drug law, the Dangerous Drugs Act 1927, banned Opium for everyone – as well as cannabis – but retained a warrantless search provision if the suspect was of Chinese descent.

Our fourth drug law, the Narcotics Act 1965 distinguished between dealing and possession, but still saw people jailed for a single joint. With the rise of the counterculture, this was untenable, and calls for further reform gathered pace.

Our fifth drug law, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, remains in force today. It came at a time of worldwide drug law reform, including the decriminalisation of cannabis in ten of the United States.

The 1972-3 Blake-Palmer committee that recommended the new law said the prohibition of cannabis “should remain only so long as it was seen to be largely effective”, and advocated a review within ten years.

However while the 1975 law created new categories with lower penalties for lower-risk drugs such as cannabis, it also gave Police extensive search powers and emboldened them to ratchet up cannabis arrests to their highest ever levels.

Police have long been overzealous in their enforcement of our drug laws. Despite have the discretion to decide themselves whether an arrest is in the public interest, we now have one of the highest arrest rates in the world. Maori are over-represented in rates of arrest, prosecution, conviction and imprisonment.

Over 449,000 people were arrested for drugs in that 20-year period, or eleven per cent of all recorded crime

85% of all drug arrests are for cannabis, contrary to Government assurances they concentrate on serious crime

87% of all cannabis arrests are for personal amounts, contrary to Police assurances they don’t arrest pot smokers

While police arrest fewer people for cannabis these days than they did ten years ago, this year they will still aim to busting over ten thousand cannabis consumers and providers, maintaining New Zealand’s dubious record of having one of the highest cannabis arrests rates in the world. Our police choose to waste the equivalent of over 150 full time police officers spent chasing and prosecuting people for small amounts of cannabis.

The review of the Misuse of Drugs Act promised in the early 70’s finally took place in 2010. The Law Commission recommended the antiquated Act be scrapped and replaced with a new law fit for purpose.

They recommended a new law that would allow the regulated availability of low risk substances, provide for warnings rather than arrests for cannabis possession, legalise social dealing, and repeal the ban on harm-reducing drug utensils.

The previous National Government cherry-picked some recommendations they liked – such as regulating the sale of synthetic psychoactive substances – and unofficially rejected all the rest.

Labour have said they will implement the Law Commission’s report.

The failure of the current law is clear. Despite their enthusiasm for arresting cannabis users, half our population have now tried cannabis. The law is not an effective deterrent.

It also brings the rule of law into disrepute, with a sizeable majority now supporting cannabis law reform. This is especially true of safe legal access to medical cannabis, which attracts almost 90% support in opinion polls.

The Government’s own research confirms that 42% of all cannabis users are medical patients (ie, they use it for health benefits). This means that one in twenty New Zealanders use cannabis for medical purposes.

Prior to 1927, the annual practical pharmacy exam asked students to prepare dispensary prescriptions for cannabis. Since 1927, thousands of patients who use cannabis medicinally have been denied effective relief, or have been prosecuted and even imprisoned for their medicine.

This includes several ‘Green Fairies’, such as Rose Renton, who are accused of providing medical cannabis to patients who need it.

Police are continuing to prosecute them even after learning the compassionate medical circumstances, and despite the Law Commission calling for the police to have a compassionate scheme and exercise their discretion for medical cannabis.

Busting Green Fairies also means patients are denied the medicine they need. Supplies are already scarce and many patients find it difficult or impossible to obtain, or too expensive to afford. As Newshub reported:

As many as 2000 terminally ill patients, amputees and cancer sufferers have been forced to go without their cannabis-based pain relief after two police busts involving so-called ‘green fairies’.

But the referendum and any subsequent law change may take 5 years: in that time 50,000 Kiwis may be arrested for cannabis, at a cost of $1.5 billion, and existing prosecutions for cannabis such as those against the Green Fairies will continue.

This is simply not good enough. Changes so far have been too slow and not enough to make any practical difference.

We also want to show that we do support the new direction taken by the new Government – we just want it to happen quicker.

And we want to demonstrate support for the Green Fairies, some of whom appear in court over the following week (there will be court house rallies on Tuesday 14th November in Nelson, Christchurch and other centres).

WHAT WAS HE THINKING? When Simon Bridges pulled his little parliamentary stunt and extracted his procedural pound of flesh – what was he thinking? Was it no more than a spur-of-the-moment bluff? Did Labour’s Chris Hipkins give in too readily? What would have happened if the Government had been prepared to call his bluff? We’ll never know. We never do. History turns on such moments. The course our political leaders end up taking is always just one of an infinite number of alternatives they could have followed. But the courses chosen: the paths followed; they matter. You can put a ring around that, they matter a lot.

What Simon Bridges was thinking, probably, was that it was a risk worth taking. As the Shadow Leader of the House, he had given the Government his word that National would support Trevor Mallard’s bid to become Speaker, providing that, in return, his colleague, Anne Tolley, would be elected Deputy-Speaker. Labour had agreed. A deal had been struck. As an “honourable” Member of Parliament, Simon’s word should have been his bond. So, yes, his bold parliamentary gambit represented a huge breach of trust. It was risky. But the potential reward was worth it.

Welching on the Speaker deal. Slapping Labour’s face in front of the whole world. Making them look weak and incompetent by turning the first sitting of the House of Representative into a shambles and a farce – and coming out of it with a concession that promised many, many more opportunities to frustrate and humiliate the Government. These were all victories – his victories – and they would transform him into National’s warrior knight.

Bridges’ actions had achieved something else. Such an open and unconscionable breach of trust made it more-or-less impossible for National’s period in opposition to be anything other than a bloody, no-holds-barred fight to the finish. Bill English had hinted that this might, indeed, be National’s plan when he told the NZ Herald that “it’s not our job to make this place run for an incoming Government […] we have no obligation to smooth [Labour’s] path. None whatsoever.”

But like this? On the first day? Surely not.

Jacinda Ardern must now decide how her Labour-NZ First-Green government should respond to Bridges’ ambush. Like Barack Obama, she has come into office with an all-embracing programme of social, economic and cultural uplift. A programme in which she hoped the losing party would not only be willing to play the role of her government’s necessarily critical opposition, but also that of a patriotically constructive partner in the urgent task of national renewal. It is now very clear that this objective will only be achieved over the broken body of the National Party. With all hopes of collaboration and compromise dashed on the very first day, Jacinda’s new government is faced with the additional challenge of advancing its ambitious legislative programme in the face of the Opposition’s implacable and unrelenting resistance.

The most effective way for the National Opposition to resist Jacinda’s reforming government is by doing everything within its power to shatter its supporters’ faith in the political system’s capacity to deliver real change. The most terrifying sight the National Opposition has witnessed so far must surely have been the size and enthusiasm of the crowd of ordinary New Zealanders who gathered in Parliament Grounds to welcome the newly sworn-in Prime Minister and her Cabinet back from Government House. Bill English and his caucus would have observed all those expressions of hope and joy and realised that unless this new-found faith in politics – Jacinda’s “stardust” – was dispersed, and rapidly, then the new government’s lease on the Treasury Benches was likely to be a long one.

National is well aware that its own supporters’ understanding of politics is very different from that of Labour’s, the Greens’ and NZ First’s followers. National voters see politics as a purely instrumental activity: the means by which their interests and aspirations are secured and encouraged. Most of them are well aware of the fact that this can only be achieved at the expense of the less prosperous half of the New Zealand population – and most of them are quite okay with that. In their eyes, the poor and the marginalised have only themselves to blame for the multiple misfortunes which assail them. If you’re a loser in this society, it’s obviously because you haven’t tried hard enough to win!

It is this ruthlessly competitive approach to life and politics which allows them to respond to Simon Bridges parliamentary ambush with nothing but unalloyed admiration. Whatever it takes to win is fine by them. If their opponents label such tactics “dirty politics”, then they will simply shrug-off the accusation. “Dirty politics?”, they will chortle. “Is there any other kind?”

What was Simon Bridges thinking when he staged his parliamentary ambush? That it would not hurt his political career to be seen to be responding so unequivocally to the expectation of his party’s supporters that everything must be done to make politics appear tawdry and mean-spirited? That every stratagem which serves to make people despair of politics; and every act that causes them to turn away from politicians in disgust; will be heartily approved by National’s voters?

Those would certainly have been the thoughts of a young, ambitious leader-in-waiting, brashly confident that the National Opposition will retain the unwavering support of all those New Zealanders intent on recovering their lost social and economic ascendancy – no matter what it does.

Use any means necessary – just so long as that bloody stardust settles!

Let me start with the glass that’s half full. At last a New Zealand government has recognised that, to quote Jacinda Ardern on Radio NZ, the system of investor-state dispute settlement in the TPPA is ‘a dog’.

Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) has become a standard demand of transnational corporations in so-called trade agreements. They allow foreign investors to enforce special protections that are not available to local firms, using private partisan offshore tribunals to demand massive compensation when governments regulate in the national interest. They are not just after the money. More often they aim to have a chilling effect on governments, as we saw with investment disputes by the tobacco industry over plain packaging of cigarettes.

In 2015 New Zealand First introduced the Fighting Foreign Corporate Control Bill to exclude ISDS from all new agreements. That mirrored similar moves in Australia and the US. National prevented it even going to select committee.

That move was part of a much bigger trend. Governments around the world are turning their back on ISDS, cancelling stand-alone bilateral investment treaties (BITS) and refusing to accept ISDS in new agreements. South Africa has replaced its BITS with a domestic law that treats foreign and local investors the same, with investor rights made subject to the post-apartheid constitution, and cases to be heard in the national courts.

Brazil has a new model investment agreement that has no ISDS, emphasises mediation, and excludes some of the most toxic investment protections. India’s model BIT tries to balance social and economic goals and gives preference to domestic courts.

The trend is not just in the global South. There is no state-state or investor-state enforcement in the investment protocol to the CER agreement between Australia and NZ. Australia said no ISDS in its FTA with the US and initially opposed it in the TPPA. The current Liberal government said it would take a ‘case-by-case’ approach. ISDS was excluded from Australia’s 2015 agreement with Japan. But South Korea insisted on it in the FTA with Australia, and with New Zealand.

In Europe, the backlash against ISDS has seen the European Union run a rescue mission by promoting a more formalised quasi-court system. That retains many of the same flaws of ISDS and enforces the same biased pro-investor rules. Our new government is already making favourable noises about this in the pending EU FTA negotiations.

Most recently, the Trump administration has turned its back on ISDS, proposing that governments should be able to opt out from ISDS in the current renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer was scathing of US corporations for expecting the state to protect it from the risks of doing business:

It’s always odd to me when the business people come around and say ‘oh, we just want our investments protected.’ I thought, ‘well so do I.’ I mean don’t we all? I would love to have my investments guaranteed. But unfortunately it doesn’t work that way in the market. It does work that way when you’re talking about special interests…. Does anybody think it’s protectionist to say you buy your own political risk insurance? I mean I can show you what protectionism is if that’s…. But it certainly isn’t this.

That’s the good news and why the Labour-led government should refuse to accept ISDS in any agreement, full stop.

However, the glass is also half empty. There is no doubt the new government has been working hard to achieve some protection for NZ from ISDS in the TPPA. But is asking the other parties for side-letters, similar to the one signed by Australia and NZ, saying they won’t let their investors use the TPPA’s investor-enforcement mechanism against us a solution?

There are several major pitfalls in this approach.

First, the other countries have to agree. If they don’t, we are stuck with it and promises not to have ISDS in future agreements becomes largely symbolic. Foreign investors are notorious for incorporating themselves in countries that give them access to these mechanisms.

Second, a side-letter means the rest of the original agreement remains intact – despite the position of Labour, NZ First and the Greens that they would not support its ratification.

Third, simply removing ISDS would not alter the pro-investor rules in the TPPA, which the government is required to implement in good faith, and which the other countries can still enforce.

Fourth, the ISDS mechanism would remain in the agreement and apply to all the other countries, buttressing its legitimacy against the turning tide.

The only consistent and principled approach is for the new government to oppose the inclusion of investment in any ‘trade’ negotiation, including the TPPA-11, and to instruct negotiators to build a critical mass to achieve that.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/11/07/jacinda-says-isds-is-a-dog-so-lets-put-it-down/feed/15Australia: Seeing What We Have To See.https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/11/07/australia-seeing-what-we-have-to-see/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/11/07/australia-seeing-what-we-have-to-see/#commentsMon, 06 Nov 2017 19:43:22 +0000https://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=93966

WHAT DOES IT MEAN when otherwise intelligent people look at something – and don’t see it? How do people train themselves to misperceive – and therefore misrepresent – the reality before their eyes?

Paul Simon’s song, ‘The Boxer’, explains it like this:

I have squandered my resistance for a pocketful of mumbles.

Such are promises, all lies and jest.

Still, a man hears what he wants to hear

And disregards the rest.

Faced with the deepening humanitarian crisis on Manus Island, why is the New Zealand Government, like the boxer, only seeing what it wants to see, and disregarding the rest?

What should our new government be seeing?

First and foremost, it should see the Australian Government’s policy on illegal immigration by sea as an exercise in imposing immediate cruelty to achieve long-term kindness. Assailed by the victims of corrupt criminal enterprises: the desperate men, women and children being sent out in flimsy boats, foundering on the high seas and drowning; successive Australian Governments have embarked upon a programme of extreme deterrence.

Refugees and economic migrants attempting to circumvent Australia’s official immigration policies, by sailing there illegally, will be treated with the utmost harshness. Without the slightest regard for age or gender, they will be interned in fetid tropical concentration camps; brutally mistreated; and informed, coldly, that under no circumstances will the Australian Government ever permit them, or their offspring, to set foot on Australian soil.

And, it’s worked. The terrifying example presented to potential “boat people” by the inhabitants of the Manus Island and Nauru detention centres has had the desired effect. The criminal middle-men have found fewer and fewer individuals and families willing to pay them the huge sums of money they had previously been able to demand for a journey to Australian shores. People smuggling has become uneconomic. The leaky boats have stopped sailing and their passengers have stopped dying.

When criticised, the Australian Government simply points to the situation in the Mediterranean. The European Union’s “humanitarian” policy of rescuing and receiving boat people has resulted in a huge expansion of people-smuggling. Every week, thousands of refugees and illegal migrants set sail from North Africa for Spain and Italy. Of those thousands, many hundreds – men, women and children – drown at sea.

On 17 June 2017, the British e-newspaper, The Independent, reported that: “More than 2,000 migrants have died attempting treacherous boat crossings to Europe so far this year”. That number must now be approaching 4,000.

These are the numbers that the Australian Government points to as justification for the astonishing cruelty of its policies. The so-called “Pacific Solution” may not be pretty to look at, runs the official argument, but it saves lives. Mothers’ lives. Children’s lives. “If we gave in to the demands of our critics,” say the Australian authorities, “we wouldn’t just have detainees, we’d have blood, on our hands!”

In the authorities’ eyes, the actions of the Australian navy, in intercepting the people-smugglers’ vessels and towing them back to their departure points; and the harsh internment regimes subsidised by the Australian state; are not only the delivery mechanisms for effective policy, but they are also entirely morally defensible. By their reckoning, it is the “humanitarian” NGOs; the groups which insist on “saving” the boat people, that have thousands of drowned human-beings on their consciences – not the Australian Government. For every boatload of refugees and illegal migrants that are “saved”: ten, twenty, thirty more overloaded and leaking death-traps are encouraged to set sail.

Faced with an adamant Australian Government which is utterly convinced that it is doing the right thing vis-à-vis illegal immigration by sea, what should the New Zealand Government do?

If we engage the Aussies in a full-scale moral debate on this issue, can we even be sure of winning it? With the example of the EU’s policy before us; and with the Australians arguably blocking the people-smuggling routes to New Zealand as well as to their own country; might we not expose ourselves to the charge of allowing our kind hearts to get in the way of the higher moral good of breaking the people-smuggling trade?

Let’s assume, however, that we are capable of refuting the Australians’ moral arguments (their policies are, after all in breach of numerous international covenants to which New Zealand remains firmly committed) what, then, should be our course of action?

Some are arguing that we should negotiate directly with the government of Papua-New Guinea. But, that really would be evidence of our diplomatic blindness! The government of Papua-New Guinea is almost entirely in the thrall of the Australian Government – its former colonial master. Ostensibly a democracy, the country is, in fact, a corrupt kleptocracy whose senior ministers are pretty-much the bought-and-paid-for playthings of Canberra. Were we to ask Port Moresby if it was willing to allow New Zealand to take 150 detainees off their hands, its officials would simply pick up the phone and ask Canberra if that would be okay. Canberra would say “No!” – and that would be that. The same applies to the supposedly independent state of Nauru – another Pacific regime morally and politically compromised by the Australians’ Pacific Solution.

All of which should tell us exactly what we are looking at when we fix our gaze on Australia.

Because it’s not just big Papua-New Guinea, and tiny Nauru, who find themselves in no position to do anything other than obey without question the dictates of Canberra. Australia may not have purchased our politicians, the way it has in other parts of the Pacific, but that’s only because they don’t need to. Our Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade is quite capable of assessing this country’s strategic economic, military and diplomatic interests without the need for Canberra to spell them out for us.

What Jacinda saw when she arrived at Kiribili House on Sunday was what she wanted to see. Our good friend and ally, the Australian prime minister. She comported herself accordingly: joshing and joking; and reporting (politely) on her Government’s response to Australia’s latest policy decisions.

Had she seen anything else: a nation able to break the New Zealand economy at will, for example, or, a regime prepared to be almost unbelievably ruthless and brutal in the pursuit of its national objectives. Had she registered a nation arming itself to the teeth in preparation for projecting “Five Eyes” power north, into the Indonesian archipelago, east, into the Pacific, and west, into the strategically vital Indian ocean, and which looks upon its “little mate”, New Zealand, as a lucrative source of economic tribute, a handy supplier of skilled labour, a cheap holiday destination, and, at need, an “unsinkable aircraft carrier” fortuitously positioned to defend Australia’s eastern flank; then what, realistically, could she have done?

Other than josh, and joke, and hope like hell that Australia never decides to treat Kiwis the way it treats the detainees on Manus Island and Nauru.

A mainstream news story last week highlighted the abject failure of this country’s mental health services to be available when they are desperately needed.

A young Greymouth man attempted suicide while in the midst of a possible cannabis-induced psychotic episode; but rather than a mental health crisis team arriving, Caleb – fighting for his life at that point – is attended by Police, who help resuscitate him and then find two cannabis plants in his back yard.

The cops do take Caleb to the acute psychiatric ward at Greymouth Hospital, but not before they charge him with three charges relating to the cannabis plants. He gets out after 5 days, but gets no ongoing support from the DHB’s mental health services for another nine months, despite a treatment plan calling for community mental health support for Caleb from the time he leaves Hospital.

He does however, end up with three convictions, three months’ community detention and nine months’ probation. While he’s off the cannabis, he’s yet – after 10 months – to hear what has happened with the court-ordered drug and alcohol counselling that he was supposed to attend after his sentencing.

In 2015 Vaughan Te Moananui, was shot and killed by Police in front of his family home in Thames. Vaughan was a community mental health patient of Waikato DHB at the time, and clearly going through a psychotic episode. The mental health crisis team took some hours to travel up to Thames from Hamilton, and the police had the responsibility of dealing with the immediate situation.

A former Police ‘crisis negotiator’ said Police often look for a convenient charge to lay against someone in Caleb’s situation, so they can get them into the cells where they can be restrained and assessed once mental health services become available.

Police are called out to ‘mental health’ situations around 60,000 times a year – about once every 5 minutes somewhere around the country – but to date are not trained to recognise or deal with mental illness. Nearly 20,000 of these are ‘suicide callouts’.

Every cop who has discussed this issue in the last several years has pointed to the health authorities’ failure to provide mental health crisis services to any realistic extent.

Shortly after the terrible Bremner murder/suicide deaths in late 2015 in Otorohanga and Kawhia, I attended a ‘community health forum’ in Otorohanga. A community health worker described a recent case where she had been asked to help a potential suicide victim late on a Fridayafternoon. After calling the Hamilton-based mental health services number, she was advised to ‘keep an eye on the person in trouble over the weekend and call again on Monday if he wasn’t any better’!!!

Waikato region, with a population of around 400,000 and driving times of up to 3 hours from Hamilton, has two mental health crisis teams. Sadly, it won’t be different from other regions.

The previous Government, continuing their pathetically inadequate response to the need, finally approved to start next year three (yes three) ‘pilot’ mental health crisis units for the whole country, comprising a paramedic, a cop and a mental health worker.

The new Government has identified a large range of urgent measures needed in the mental health space – we are unsure if this initiative will be urgently expanded, or even kept, but it is as sure as hell needed!

David Macpherson is TDB’s mental health blogger. He became involved in mental health rights after the mental health system allowed his son to die. He is now a Waikato DHB Member.

Jacinda Ardern driving the battered vehicle of the New Zealand state, fuelled and powered by corporate henchmen and steered by their political representatives, down the narrow, one-way street of neo-liberal capitalism into another brick wall. It will emerge, more battered and shattered, with the chassis crumpled but most importantly for its corporate pit crew, it will be barely roadworthy. This act of self-destruction by Ardern will lower the barriers to further corporate plunder of the New Zealand economy.

Labour has always supported the TPPA but in the face of mounting public opposition it attacked the secrecy around the negotiations rather than the agreement itself. Under leader Andrew Little, Labour said it wanted to change the agreement to allow it to stop foreign speculators from buying New Zealand homes. But this was the extent of their criticism. In the background was Labour MP Phil Goff (the most right-wing Labour MP since Roger Douglas resigned) who was being kept informed of progress in the negotiations by National’s Tim Groser and carried the official “we support this” line.

(Daily Blog readers will remember Labour gave Goff permission to cross the floor in support of legislation backing the TPPA while Labour flustered about foreign house buyers)

Labour says it supports free trade and therefore supports the TPPA. But it’s not a free trade agreement. It is a bill of rights for foreign corporations to loot national economies. The economic benefit to New Zealand is just a billion dollars per annum by 2030.

Labour has defined its opposition to TPPA on the basis of stopping foreign speculators buying New Zealand homes. In doing so it ignores the neo-liberal project the agreement represents. It ignores the threats to New Zealand’s ability to regulate our economy in future. It sets aside concerns about the ISDS (Investor State Disputes Settlement) process whereby foreign corporations can sue the New Zealand government if laws are passed which, directly or indirectly, constrain corporate profits.

Such is the level of public opposition to this extension of power to foreign corporations that should Ardern carry on sleepwalking to the signing the TPPA it will forever blight her Prime Ministership.

It’s unfortunate for her that it has come so early in her leadership but that’s what politics has dished her up.

On 8 November David Parker will sit down with fellow trade ministers from the TPPA-11 countries in Da Nang, Vietnam, and decide what to do with the deal. The officials have just finished three days of intense technical discussions in Tokyo.

There is now a 50/50 chance they will agree to proceed with the deal without the US and on what terms.

At most, some of the most objectionable parts of the existing agreement will be suspended (or ‘frozen’) pending re-entry by the US. Nothing is to be rewritten, except the rules for entry into force (which previously required the US’s participation).

All its toxic elements remain, to come into effect if the US decides to re-engage.

In other words, our new government may decide in the next few days to adopt an agreement that all three parties said should not be ratified when National tabled it in the House.

What parts of the TPPA might be ‘frozen’? In Japan, the officials considered around 50 items tabled by each country. Because of the ongoing shroud of secrecy, we don’t know what was on New Zealand’s list – and the TPPA’s secrecy pact means we won’t know for at least another four years unless the government decides to tell us!

We know the eleven countries have agreed to ‘freeze’ about one third of the 50 items. A lot of these are on intellectual property (but not extending copyright for another 20 years, giving Hollywood, Sony etc the benefits without any cost to the US). Some other requests have been dropped.

The officials will try to agree on the remaining half when they reconvene in Da Nang tomorrow, then pass the remaining decisions to the trade ministers and if necessary the leaders. They won’t have a lot of time, because they will be meeting on the margins of the larger APEC meeting which they also have to attend. Hence, the 50/50 risk of an outcome.

Crucial remaining issues on the list for ‘freezing’ include investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), the ban on countries requiring personal or corporate data to be held locally (see my previous blog on the e-commerce text), and the rule that prevents state-owned enterprises from giving preference to local firms when they buy and sell products and services.

But other important items are not on the agenda. These include the special rules that protect foreign investors (a separate issue from ISDS); the annex that allows big Pharma to have greater influence over Pharmac’s decisions; the requirement to adopt international conventions on intellectual property (such as the UPOV 1991 convention on plant varieties that the Wai 262 Waitangi Tribunal report said was inconsistent with the Treaty); the government’s right to prefer buying Kiwi-made; requiring foreign firms like Amazon to have an actual presence inside New Zealand to subject them more effectively to our consumer protection and tax laws; insisting that foreign buyers of resources like forests process the logs locally to promote work, regional development and ease the shortage of products; and many more.

This is the time for action. It is time to hold the new government to account through every avenue you have available.

Remind Labour it said there was no valid economic rationale, even when the US was involved, and a potential for job losses. And that it called for a health impact assessment –repeated to the new government by Doctors for Healthy Trade this week.

Remind New Zealand First it denounced the special rights for foreign investors who could enforce them against the government for massive damages in dubious offshore tribunals. There’s no point in saying we won’t have it in future agreements if it’s in the TPPA.

Remind the Greens they said the TPPA belongs to a failed neoliberal model, when the country and the world need genuine sustainability and the capacity to address climate change.

Just when you thought you knew all the reasons why the Labour-led government needs to walk away from the TPPA-11, let me add another item to the list and another minister for you to tweet – Clare Curran.

The flow of data across borders through the Internet is massive and ever-increasing. We all use the services of Amazon, Google, Expedia or Alibaba. But we also increasingly recognise the downsides – negative impacts on jobs and local businesses, their notorious tax avoidance practices, and the ability of these mega-corporations to control, sell and manipulate data raises huge problems for privacy, data protection, consumer rights, anti-competitive practices, and cyber-security.

How many of us simply click the box when the website says we have to agree to its rules or accept cookies to proceed without thinking about the rights over our information that this gives to the giant global corporations who run the digital platforms and services? And how many of us know the TPPA guarantees those rights to those corporations? If these rules remain in a TPPA-11, our government will face huge problems in trying to regulate the digital domain, especially through privacy laws that protect our personal information as new situations emerge, and to ensure that businesses and organizations that hold our data safeguard and handle it appropriately.

The TPPA is a brilliant stealth attack by the tech industry, often symbolised by the acronym GAFA (Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple). In recent years, they have massively increased their lobbying presence in the US. This year Google is the top corporate spender on lobbying in the US, dishing out US$6 million in just three months.

One of their main goals is to prevent governments from regulating their operations and cement their dominance for the indefinite future through trade agreements. Over time, they have managed to incorporate their ‘digital trade’ issues into the US trade agenda. In particular, the US made unrestricted transfers of data to wherever in the world the companies want to hold them, and bans on requirements that data is held inside the country of origin, among its highest ‘trade’ priorities.

The landmark was the electronic commerce chapter in the TPPA. It’s not something we have talked much about here. But it is hugely important for the future. Specifically, Article 14.11 on Cross-Border Data Transfers by Electronic Means and Article 14.13 on Location of Computing grant businesses the freedom to outsource data storage and processing to anywhere they want without any limitation. They significantly undermine the ability of the NZ government to secure our data against unauthorized or unlawful processing, or accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data.

Even though there is an exception permitting governments to adopt or maintain measures inconsistent with the cross-border transfer of information it is not strong enough to protect the policies, laws and regulations we need to safeguard privacy. The US insisted on wording that would allow it to maintain its weak privacy and strong state surveillance laws. Other countries have recognised this. The EU has rejected the same language proposed in the TISA negotiations, and there is a ‘placeholder’ for cross-border data transfers in the EU – Japan FTA because they couldn’t agree on a strong enough exception.

Other parts of the TPPA’s e-commerce chapter would restrict our ability to require access to source codes. That’s how you can check on practices like Volkswagon’s fraudulent software to disguise excessive emissions and Google’s gender algorithm that meant only men got shown jobs for senior management positions, and how you can ensure there are effective protections against hacking.

The e-commerce chapter was insisted on by the US. The US is no longer in the TPPA. If the TPP’s e-commerce rules are kept in the TPPA-11, the beneficiaries will be the major US technology companies, and possibly those from China, neither will have to give anything in return. We will be the losers, again.

The Japanese media reports that Vietnam, and possibly other countries, want to remove the data provisions at least from the agreement. The new government needs to support them at next week’s APEC meeting in Vietnam, and add the e-commerce rules to the agenda for a comprehensive independent review of the TPPA-11 before it makes any decisions we will regret far into the future.

Halloween came early for parasitic land bankers. On 30 October, new Housing Minister, Phil Twyford, issued a bold statement that has barely been reported or commented on: land bankers are firmly in the laser-sights of the new Labour-Green-NZF coalition government.

At the same time that Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced an impending ban on the sale of existing homes to foreign investor/speculators – Minister Twyford issued a clear warning to land bankers that the recently elected Coalition Government would be prepared to seize their land under the Public Works Act;

.

“You don’t want to have one land banker holding out a massive new development that’s going to deliver thousands of new homes.”

.

Minister Twyford was unequivocal;

“We’ve got a Housing Minister now that accepts there is a housing crisis. You don’t want to have one land banker holding out a massive new development that’s going to deliver thousands of new homes.

…You might want to have it in your back pocket, but you’d use it very, very sparingly.”

He said that the new government recognised the reality of the housing crisis and was “going to throw everything at it“.

“…land banking – an especially baneful form of rent seeking at the current time – is more prevalent in situations where land supply is constrained and planning approval processes are slow and uncertain. Land banking is also only profitable where the value of land is rising faster than the cost of capital. And in the absence of physical barriers to land supply, land price increases above the level of inflation are driven primarily by policies and regulations that artificially restrict the supply of land.

It stands to reason, then, that the removal of regulatory constraints on the supply of land, along with more permissive planning policies and infrastructure provision, would increase competition amongst both developers and land owners, thereby driving down the cost of land/housing. The existence of high levels of competition would, in turn, make land banking particularly risky, as another nearby owner would always have the opportunity to move to the market ahead of the land banking firm.”

Whilst Van Onselen recognised the “baneful” nature of land banking, his proposed more-market “solution” is not without dire consequences. In the “absence of physical barriers to land supply” by “the removal of regulatory constraints on the supply of land“, urban sprawl into valuable food-producing rural land creates new problems through unintended consequences. Interviewed on TVNZ’s Q+A on 29 October, Horticulture New Zealand CEO, Mike Chapman warned;

Horticulture New Zealand is calling on the new Government to protect locally-grown food as urban sprawl threatens valuable growing land. Its CEO, Mike Chapman, says the impact is already “quite extreme”.

“If we don’t, we’ll be increasing our imports – fresh, nutritious locally grown food will not be available, and at the moment, we don’t have country of origin labeling, so the consumers won’t know where they’re buying their food from. It could be from anywhere in the world,” says Mr Chapman.

Reliance on the “marketplace” to solve our housing problem can be a dubious proposition.

This is especially the case when commercial firms actively exploit a problem for greater profits. This property-brochure from Guardian First National Real Estate in Johnsonville, Wellington, illustrates that (some) companies are not above exploiting a problem for purely personal gain;

A land banking business with a big piece of residentially zoned real estate on Auckland’s outskirts has made more than $6 million a year for almost two decades – doing nothing.

QV records shows Yi Huang Trading Company owns 39 Flat Bush School Rd, which it bought in 1995 for $890,000.

Now, this 29ha block is listed on the market for $112.6 million, promoted as “the land of opportunity, vacant but close to Barry Curtis Park”.

[…]

The sale has left developers fuming. They say land bankers are ruining the city and that the sale will be tax-free because the company has held the land for so long.

Conversely – and with some justification – land banking is also a necessary tool by those developers who actually intend to build on them. As one project is completed, and another begins, the developer must ensure a constant supply of readily available land “in the pipeline”.

As Van Onselen reported in 2011, quoting from work by Professor Alan Evans, Director of the Centre for Spatial and Real Estate Economics at the University of Reading (United Kingdom);

…as well as causing delay and increasing uncertainty, the process of seeking planning permission lends itself to strategic thinking and behaviour… the lack of certainty created by [such] a system is that it encourages the possession by large developers such as volume house builders of land banks… which can be developed at some future time. A developer such as a volume house builder will seek to ensure continuity in the supply of sites for development so as to ensure that management, equipment and labour can be used efficiently… without being laid off or idle. Commentary on the financial pages of newspapers would suggest that a land bank of at least 3 years supply seems to be regarded as necessary for the financial health of a house builder… not having a site available for development at the right time can mean that a exorbitant price will have to be paid to buy one, in order to keep the firm in business…

Speaking on The Nation on 4 November, Housing Minister Twyford appears to be fully cognisant of this particular problem and showed little reticence to proactively intervene in the “market”;

“Because of capacity problems in the industry, particularly workforce issues, it is going to take us a little while to ramp up. And our modelling has always been based on the idea that in the first three years, we’ll probably deliver about 16,000 homes, and in the third year, we’ll start to hit the average of 10,000 a year. There are three main ways that we’re going to deliver KiwiBuild. So, the first is that we’re going to say and are already saying to the private sector, to developers and builders, if you’re doing a development and you think that some of the properties in that development – might be a set of townhouses, for example, somewhere – would meet the KiwiBuild affordability criteria and design specs, then come to us. We’ll look at them, and we could buy them off the plan, speeding up your development, taking some of the risk out of it, and ensuring that we get a supply of high-quality affordable homes for first home buyers.

[…]

One of the problems at the moment, actually, is that many of the apartment projects that are underway are having real problems with financing. So by the government willing to underwrite or buy units off the plan, that actually takes away some of the risk and uncertainty and will speed up those developments.”

This is precisely the kind of market-intervention which many progressives have been demanding. Minister Twyford even spelled it out;

“So we’re going to intervene in the market to fix that market failure by building large numbers of affordable homes. That’s the job of government, to do that.”

The alternative? To do nothing as National allowed the free hand of the market to run it’s course, and unsurprisingly our housing crisis worsened. Journalist and commentator, Tim Watkin, painted an increasingly bleak picture of urban life in New Zealand in the early 21st Century;

“… what social service agencies are now reporting is a growing – yes, growing – group of Kiwis living in their cars or renting garages. Social workers in South Auckland to a person say they can’t remember it being this bad. Rents have risen 25 percent in five years and emergency houses are full.

And this isn’t just extended families bunking down in a garage while they wait for a house, as we’ve seen for years. This is a new rental property market; people paying strangers to live for months, even years, in a garage. You won’t see it on TradeMe, but we’re talking about $300 or more a week. One family had been living in a garage for two years and are paying $380/week.

Wesley-Smith was taken to Bruce Pulman Park in Takanini by Manuaku East MP Jenny Salesa, where families and individuals can be found most nights near the public toilets, sleeping in their cars. Salesa says one car-dwelling family a week turns up at her office seeking help; half aren’t engaged with the Ministry of social Development.”

Watkins was merciless in his criticism of the capitalist exploitation of the housing crisis for selfish ends. Firstly with “mum and dad property investors”;

So it’s time for mum and dad property investors to ask themselves a few hard questions. If the cost of your borrowing is forcing people to pay rents they can’t afford, maybe you shouldn’t be in the landlord business. Even if you are only one stone in the mountain, have you borrowed too much to morally justify your investment?

But he reserved his most trenchant ire for parasitic land-bankers;

But even more in the gun are the property developers, especially those who are land banking in this market. It’s time to call out those land bankers and say enough.

Financially, it’s a no-brainer for them. Especially if they’re lucky enough to own land in a Special Housing Area with all the privileges of accelerated consents and greater intensification attached. You’re quids in, the government has put a premium on your land and land values are skyrocketing. So why go to the risk and hassle of actually building?

The answer: Because your land banking is making kids sick. It’s driving families into their cars. It’s increasingly immoral to fiddle while Auckland burns.

Auckland desperately needs houses and if you’re a developer sitting on land, then you’re putting your own finances ahead of the need of families to have a roof over their heads.

Housing Minister Nick Smith denies that land banking is a problem in his Special Housing Areas.

Watkins was on the button; Nick Smith is in full Denial Mode when it comes to land-banking.

On 3 June last year, I lodged a OIA request with Nick Smith, asking;

1. Does the government keep a record of how much land is “landbanked” in New Zealand?

2. If the answer to Question 1 is “yes”, how much land has been landbanked in Auckland, Wellington, Hamilton, Christchurch, and Dunedin?

3. Please provide any Ministerial, Ministry, or Cabinet papers that relate to the issue of landbanking.

After nearly two months and reminders sent to Smith’s office, the Minister finally responded on 20 July. His response to my three questions consisted of one paragraph;

“The problem with your request is that ‘land banking’ is a loosely used phrase a bit like ‘speculation’ that has no agreed definition. A person or company may own a section of land and not build on it for some time for all sorts of reasons and there is no definition of how long this is for it to be deemed land banking. We do keep track of the progress made on developments in Special Housing Areas and I refer you to the publicly available reports that set out the progress on development of these areas (http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/housing-property/housing-affordability).”

Remarkably, Smith added at the end;

“I can confirm that no information can be found within the scope of your request.”

“The Government and the Council are determined to release sufficient land supply and we’re not going to allow land price inflation of the sort we’ve seen over the last decade.

I want the land owning development community to realise that the Government is serious with Council about freeing up land supply, and they cannot bank on ongoing high land price appreciation that has encouraged land banking over the last decade.”

As with the previous National government refusing to define and measure poverty, by claiming that “‘land banking’ is a loosely used phrase a bit like ‘speculation’ that has no agreed definition” Smith was clearly hoping/praying that public/media attention on this issue would fade away.

Despite insisting he had “no information” or “definition” of the problem, Smith was considering seizing property from land bankers – something he recognised as running counter to National’s pro-capitalist kaupapa;

“If you look at many of the other governments in other parts of the world that have used those powers, they have worked effectively.

Yes, we are the National Party, but we have responded in a very pragmatic way to the challenges in Christchurch. And that has involved overcoming some of those pure views about property rights.

We are pragmatic, and pragmatic answers are needed to the housing challenge that New Zealand has.”

Smith himself once said it was “offensive” that an investor in Auckland could buy land in 1995 for $890,000 and put it on sale in 2016 for $112 million. “The biggest problem is Auckland is the issue of landbanking,” Smith said.

Smith’s approach to the problem was to rely on the special housing areas in Auckland, which allow for faster consents for large housing developments. Developers can face a “use it or lose it” clause which penalises them if they don’t lodge consent applications. His critics, however, argue that this rule doesn’t guarantee house completions.

And that is the problem with land-banking, it seems. It is merely a symptom of a deeper malaise, and fixing it might require radical changes. It remains to be seen what one city council can do by way of encouraging or scaring developers into building more affordable houses.

Some such as economist Arthur Grimes have suggested that the Government should use the Public Works Act to buy land for housing. This is a reasonable suggestion, draconian though it might seem. The housing crisis is so serious that radical measures of this sort have to be considered.

The National-led Government, however, with its deep allegiance to property rights and its natural sympathy for the business class, would never accept such a proposal.

“I don’t often agree with the Nats, but I think there are (rare) circumstances where land bankers could be paid off, moved on, and the land put to use. But – the extinguishing of private property rights? Seizure of land? Just imagine if Labour had proposed it. There would have been an instant orgy of political and media outrage. Because it’s National though, there will be barely a whisper.“

Robins’ comment had a prescient quality to it. A Labour Minister – Phil Twiford – has now threatened to do precisely what Nick Smith threatened (but never had the guts to actually follow through on).

By brandishing the Public Works Act as a ‘stick’, Twyford has put land bankers on notice. Either develop the land or have it seized by the State to house the homeless.

In a civilised society, for land bankers to sit on empty, buildable land whilst families are packed in over-crowded houses; in garages, or survive in vans and cars – is an affront to any notion of fairness and decency.

It would be like someone hoarding food in times of famine, to get a better price later.

And if Minister Twyford invokes the Public Works Act to seize land, the National Party should think twice before screaming in outrage. It would be sheer hypocrisy on their part.

For one thing, former Housing Minister Nick Smith threatened precisely the same thing.

Secondly, the housing crisis is a legacy of the previous National government. It’s their mess we’re cleaning up.

There is a growing recognition that capitalism is at least a part of the problem we face in this society.

First, we had Winston Peters comment when he announced he was forming a government with the Labour Party. He said:

“Far too many New Zealanders have come to view today’s capitalism, not as their friend, but as their foe. And they are not all wrong. That is why we believe that capitalism must regain its responsible – its human face.”

Then the new Prime Minister and Labour Party leader Jacinda Adern was asked directly if capitalism had failed low-income Kiwis she was unequivocal that it had.

“If you have hundreds of thousands of children living in homes without enough to survive, that’s a blatant failure. What else could you describe it as?” she said.

Her alternative was to “acknowledge where the market has failed and where intervention is required.”

Given the dominant views being propagated in the media by government leaders, political and economic commentators, and big business-owned media has been the opposite of that view for decades, this has been a resounding failure for the orthodox view.

The truth is that inequality has been growing, along with widespread poverty in the most advanced capitalist nations on earth in Europe, North America, Japan and Australasia.

The UBS/PwC Billionaires Report has found that the wealth of 1542 billionaires in the world rose another 17% last year to $6 trillion, or six thousand billion dollars (that’s $US6,000,000,000,000)!

Joeseph Stadler, the lead author of the report is worried there will be a backlash against this concentration of wealth as has occurred in the past. He told the UK Guardian that:

“Wealth concentration is as high as in 1905; this is something billionaires are concerned about. The problem is the power of interest on interest—that makes big money bigger—and the question is to what extent is that sustainable, and at what point will society intervene and strike back?”

The international aid agency Oxfam has found that: “The global inequality crisis is reaching new extremes. The richest 1% now have more wealth than the rest of the world combined. Power and privilege is being used to skew the economic system to increase the gap between the richest and the rest. A global network of tax havens further enables the richest individuals to hide $7.6 trillion. The fight against poverty will not be won until the inequality crisis is tackled.”

Millions of working people have felt the harsh truth of that reality, but it has not often found a political voice.

The system’s defenders have always argued that inequality and poverty that has been central to the reality of the capitalist system was some sort of mistake caused by interfering with the market, rather than caused by its natural laws. Just a few months ago, UK prime Minister Theresa May was arguing that “A free market economy, operating under the right rules and regulations, is the greatest agent of collective human progress ever created” She added that this system was “the only sustainable way of increasing the living standards of everyone in the country.”

Those comments are religious dogma not science. Millions of citizens of the UK used the election that was held there recently to repudiate her lies by voting for an opposition Labour Party led by someone who speaks openly for a socialist alternative.

Even big bosses in the UK are getting worried at the failure of their own system. The Financial Times in the UK is a leading mouthpiece of big business. Talking among themselves they let slip the worries they have. On October 22 they printed the views of a number of business leaders also concerned at the failures of capitalism.

Baroness Shriti Vadera of Santander UK contradicts the assertion of Theresa May and says that “The underlying promise of western capitalist economies — that a rising tide lifts all boats — has been broken.” She then adds that “A better model” is now needed.

The problem with all these commentators from Winston Peters to Baroness Vadera is that capitalism has no “lost its way” or its “human face”.

Capitalism is actually showing us the inevitable outcome of its nature and its true face.

Capitalism has been the dominant economic system on the planet for at least 150 years. It has produced extraordinary economic growth. For many decades one generation was generally better off than the next. But that has ceased to be true other than for China and possibly India today (for reasons we will discuss at another time).

Today working people in the most advanced capitalist countries are going backwards from one generation to the next.

The capitalist economic system is also based on endless growth. On average, the system has grown about three percent a year for 200 years. But today, that perpetual growth machine is suffocating the planet and as it does so it will destroy humanity’s ability to coexist with the planet for their own survival.

This is a life and death struggle. Capitalism exists as a competitive system. It produces winners and losers. Capital is concentrated and centralised. That is the source of monopolisation and the domination of the 1%.

This system cannot be regulated or controlled. It needs to be overthrown and a new system of production and distribution that is not based on the profit motive brought in to replace it.

Capitalists have controlled most businesses that exist in the world and they operate according to its laws. Capitalists own most of the newspapers which churn our daily propaganda defending the eternal nature of the system. They have entire professions devoted to furthering their needs and interests.

Yet two out of three people in New Zealand thinks this system has failed. That is extraordinary.

We need to transform that “anti-capitalist” sentiment into a pro-socialist one. This can be done by developing a series of demands that seem reasonable and sensible but which lead to the transformation of society rather than trying to make the system work. The system does work. The problem for the system – capitalism – is that we don’t like it. We need a new system.

It’s like politicians have suddenly been given permission to call out capitalism for its injustices, excesses, and inequalities. Winston Peters said what others had been scared to say, that capitalism has created many who see it as foe rather than friend, and they’re ‘not all wrong’. He criticised ‘irresponsible’ neo-liberal capitalism which has changed the character and quality of our country, mostly ‘for the worse’. He argued that capitalism must regain its responsible, humane face, I guess to prevent political crisis when the anticipated economic crisis occurs. In choosing Labour as a coalition partner over National, New Zealand First ‘rejected the status quo in favour of real change’. But how much can improving the ‘face’ of capitalism, solve the more fundamental problems of the system itself. And how radical are the new government’s reform policies anyway? Media commentators have had a field day speculating on the degree and impact of the new Government’s reformist agenda in the midst of this rare political opportunity.

Oliver Chan in his article ‘Keynsianism for a new New Zealand’, calls the government’s change programme ‘aspirational socialism’. He said Labour and New Zealand First are the ‘bipartisan gravediggers for neoliberalism’. Media across the ditch and farmers in Morrinsville mistook Labour’s policies for communism. Duncan Garner said the new government with its regional development policies, support for rail, cannabis reform and free education, would be a ‘revolutionary force’.

Others such as Bryan Gould and Bryce Edwards say the election of a progressive, reformist, energetic and active government, reflects a global zeitgeist, and has captured and channelled anti-establishment politics in a more positive way than in, for example, the election of Trump in the United States. Democratic politics and MMP have worked well, in harnessing political opposition to the machinery of the status quo to affect legitimate and peaceful ways of mediating controlled change. Political outcomes are highly contingent, and unfortunately change has been rather slow to get here and a lot of damage has been done in the meantime.

In support of Jacinda Ardern, Wayne Mapp, former National MP, said the new government won’t really be radical. -After all it will continue to work within the current national and international economic frameworks, surpluses will be maintained, budget responsibility will be upheld. Spending will be transparent and accountable. There will be no dismantling of the capitalist system at the hands of this government, despite criticisms of some of its effects. But what will be most important, said Wayne Mapp, is the signal it sends in terms of ‘atmospherics’. That will ‘really mean something.”. “It’s a chance to remake the narrative of the country, …the way we portray ourselves to the world”. Indeed, our election of a young woman as Prime Minister has already done that.

Winston’s criticism of capitalism in the speech where he announced his choice of coalition partner, did a lot to position his party, and the new Government he enabled, more to the symbolic left of centre than had been present for a long time.

On the tv programme The Nation, the next day, Jacinda Ardern, in one of her ‘most left wing speeches’ according to Bryce Edwards, answered Lisa Owen’s inquiry as to whether she agreed with Winston’s prognosis. She said while the party campaigned on addressing capitalism’s failures by ‘tweaking’ the system, her view was that capitalism had been a blatant failure when measured by child poverty. And that “If you have hundreds of thousands of children living in homes without enough to survive, that’s a blatant failure. What else could you describe it as?”

It’s true that capitalism has failed low income earners who live in poverty at one of the highest rates in the developed world, and indeed, all over the world. It’s failed the children who live in those low-income homes. It’s failed the homeless. But capitalism has also failed our rivers, our oceans, biodiversity, future generations and our atmosphere.

But with Winston’s proclamation, and Jacinda’s elucidation, all of a sudden it’s ok to admit the Emperor’s clothes are a poor fit, that they fail to cover the regime’s inadequacies, its indecencies, the harms it causes in private.

We’re on a roll, with more in the new government’s due criticism of capitalism. This week, Trade Minister David Parker said that the proposed ban on non-resident foreign investors buying existing houses in New Zealand, was to address the pressures of the ‘excesses of capitalism’ in the form of the overseas 1% who can currently come in to this country and buy houses, driving up prices for good kiwi buyers.

The policy itself has been criticised as an ill directed, (xenophobic) dog whistle against perceived ‘others’, which may not make much difference to house price inflation, because it’s not matched with a capital gains tax, doesn’t apply to new builds, doesn’t apply to businesses, and the focus of the policy only creates between 5 and 20% of housing demand anyway.

While speculative investment from foreign buyers might be causing a part of the house price inflation, it’s clear that most of the demand is driven by domestic investors and speculators, our own 1% who remain unaffected by this policy. There are clearly thousands of kiwis who had the good luck of access to a low but growing housing market and cheap interest rates to buy a collection of houses, all rented out, with interest and costs claimed against tax. Kiwis who responded to market signals and bought two, three, twenty houses to guard against their old age penury, but without regard to the housing insecurity of others. Criticisms of the global 1% buying existing houses in New Zealand, and current and planned policy settings, do nothing to address the impacts of our own 1%. After all, this sector of the community vote, and have a lot at stake, and we saw in the polls how the prospect of a capital gains tax could make all the difference to the outcome of the election. Despite the enthusiasm for a compassionate and empathetic governance style, self-interest and personal economic security for those who can get it, is a pretty strong force, even if it cuts others including the next generation, out of the market.

Can capitalism really deliver solutions to the problems it creates anyway, without causing worse injustice, if not here, then somewhere else in the world as our local achievements are offset by costs in some poorer country? Joven’s paradox says we can’t use green growth to build our way out of environmental damage, without creating more. We can’t grow ourselves out of finite resources and inequality using the model that created these problems in the first place. And with a duly expected economic slow-down or collapse, aren’t we just trying to secure the safety net and batten the hatches for more of what, for many, is an already bumpy ride? In our welfare system, accommodation allowance, working for families, planned heating subsidies, are we not just supporting the shortcomings of capitalism? Instead of regulated rent control, and companies paying decent wages, the government picks up the pieces. As usual isn’t the democratic system just effectively, co-opting real revolutionary energy and hitching it to the prevailing political order, ameliorating the worst effects of capitalism but doing little to change its wider instability or injustice?

Therein lies the dilemma. We New Zealanders, have responded to the capital incentives of a dynamic housing environment, but reject perceptions of ‘foreign’ involvement in the same. ‘Multiple home ownership should be the purview of kiwis, not ‘foreigners’.’ When it comes to the Trans Pacific Partnership, we all want access to immediate supply of the best – and worst- of the world’s consumer goods and commodities – exotic food, cheap clothing, cars, tvs, the latest international tech gadgets, international education, travel, …but we resent the damage from this global market on our own employment, investments and environment. We want international markets to deliver goods for our own consumption, and to buy our goods, but we resent our loss of jobs, the saturation of our markets and overseas investment in our own country at the same time. Just like capitalism privatises the benefits and socialises the costs, as consumers, we’re globalist when it comes to benefits and protectionist when it comes to costs.

Labour says it plans to ban foreign owners of new homes under the Overseas Investment Act to pre-empt the Trans Pacific Partnership rules, because it will otherwise lose the opportunity to ban foreign home ownership forever. That should be a concern in itself. Some critics think, however, that’s a red herring because of greater concern is the Investor States Disputes Settlement clause which undermines states’ sovereign rights to make policies in the interests of public or environmental health, at risk of being sued by corporations. Jacinda Ardern admits the ISDS provisions may not be changed.

But they’re hopeful days with the new government. With a three-party solution and the broad pick and mix of policies, there’s something there for every-one. In terms of ‘atmospherics’, there must be something in the air because most of us on the left are feeling pretty high. And while this may not be the radical root and branch revolutionary reform that capitalism really needs, a pulling out of a pretty but noxious vine, a good prune will always help to manage better growth and form. That’s in the interests of capital, and the community and keeps the vine bearing fruit and keeps the force alive while we strive for even better.

WHAT WORRIES ME MOST about the proposed “No Foreign Buyers” amendment to the Overseas Investment Act (OIA) is its apparent simplicity. Nothing in politics is ever that easy! And isn’t it remarkable, the way the proposal just happens to solve Labour’s primary objection to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)? It’s almost as if somebody at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) had the relevant file tucked away in a draw somewhere, ready to be presented to the incoming Trade Minister, David Parker, with a Yes Minister-style flourish, at just the right moment.

Come to think of it, exactly when did the foreign-buyer problem become Labour’s primary objection to the TPP? More importantly, when did it become a more important issue than the Investor/State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions of the agreement? How did the latter end up as a sort of secondary issue? When did it become what Bill English used to call a “Nice To Have”. An outcome the Prime Minister and her Trade Minister will do their utmost to achieve, but for which neither of them is willing to die in a ditch.

It makes no sense. The ISDS provisions of the TPP are the ones permitting foreign investors (a.k.a huge multinational corporations) to sue the New Zealand Government for imposing legislative and/or regulatory restrictions on their existing or proposed investments. Such litigation to occur not in a New Zealand courtroom, in front of a New Zealand judge, but before an international tribunal staffed and adjudicated by the sort of lawyers more usually to be found working for – you guessed it – “huge multinational corporations”.

How does that work? Well, a government pledged to uphold the provisions of a multilateral trade agreement might decide that, in order to secure its people’s right to access affordable housing, it will legislate to prevent foreign buyers from bidding-up the price of private dwellings beyond their reach.

“Oh no you don’t!”, objects the huge multinational corporation dedicated to acquiring foreign real estate on behalf of its fabulously wealthy international clients. And before that government can say “goodbye national sovereignty”, it finds itself in front of an ISDS tribunal.

I know, I know! The Trade Minister, David Parker, has assured us that providing the OIA is amended before the TPP comes into force, then New Zealand will be protected from the ISDS provisions of the agreement.

To which I offer the following two objections.

My first, is that David Parker’s “solution” logically foresees New Zealand being bound, in all other respects, by the TPP. Why else would he bother using this rather convoluted way of banning foreign property speculators? There must be simpler ways. The only logical answer is: because the new Labour-NZ First-Green Government is committed to signing the TPP – with the ISDS provisions still applying to us – and Parker’s “solution” is the only way it can keep its big election promise to end foreign property speculation.

My second, is that the new Government’s “solution” may prove to be not a solution at all. Even if the OIA is amended prior to the TPP coming into force, I believe that those foreign property investors affected might still have a crack at New Zealand under the ISDS provisions.

They could argue that the legislation banning them amounts to a pre-emptive circumvention of the agreement. The OIA’s original purpose of protecting “sensitive” land was to ensure that sites of environmental, historic and cultural significance remained in New Zealand hands. They could, therefore, argue that the amendment’s redefinition of “sensitive sites” to include private dwellings represents a deliberate perversion of the OIA’s original intention. As the victims of a pre-emptive circumvention of the TPP, they could demand that the ISDS tribunal award them billions of dollars by way of reparation. And what guarantee do we have that the corporate lawyers sitting in judgement of the New Zealand state’s actions wouldn’t find in favour of the plaintiffs?

That’s why I’m so uneasy about this amazing, eleventh-hour “solution”. I can’t help seeing it as too good to be true. Yes, it is acting as a superb distraction from what I consider to be the most dangerous aspect of the TPP – its ISDS provisions – but why? The arguments in favour of refusing to sign the TPP until New Zealand is exempted from those provisions are very easy to make – hell, they’re core NZ First and Green policy! – so why aren’t Jacinda and David making them?

What would make me a whole lot happier, is a rock-solid guarantee from the Prime Minister and her Trade Minister, that a TPP agreement containing ISDS provisions applicable to its own actions will not be entered into by the New Zealand Government.

John Key has defended his party’s planned program of tax cuts, after Treasury numbers released today showed the economic outlook has deteriorated badly since the May budget. The numbers have seen Treasury reducing its revenue forecasts and increasing its predictions of costs such as benefits. Cash deficits – the bottom line after all infrastructure funding and payments to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund are made – is predicted to blow out from around $3 billion a year to around $6 billion a year.

The rest is history. National won the 2008 election. Tax-cuts were enacted in April 2009 and October 2010.

The tax cuts were (and still are!) costing us around $2 billion per year, according to figures obtained by the Green Party from the Parliamentary Library.

New information prepared for the Green Party by the Parliamentary Library show that the estimated lost tax revenues from National’s 2010 tax cut package are between $1.6-$2.2 billion. The lost revenue calculation includes company and personal income tax revenues offset by increases in GST.

“The National Government said that their signature 2010 income tax cut package would be ‘fiscally neutral’ — paid for increased revenues from raising GST. That hasn’t happened. The net cost for tax cuts has been about $2 billion,” Green Party Co-leader Dr Russel Norman said today.

“National’s poor economic decisions have led to record levels of government debt and borrowing.

“They have also broken a promise to the electorate when they said their tax cut package was going to be fiscally neutral.”

Whilst it can be justifiably argued that New Zealand’s debt increased because of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis and two Christchurch earthquakes – both of which were out of National’s control – the loss of revenue through two unaffordable tax cuts in ’09 and ’10 were of it’s own making.

Against this backdrop of gross fiscal irresponsibility, Steven Joyce has pontificated that “New Zealanders are still none the wiser about the cost of the coalition’s programme and the impact on their back pockets“.

It could also be argued that “most New Zealanders are still none the wiser about the cost of National’s tax-cuts and the impact on their social services“.

Steven Joyce lecturing the incoming coalition government on fiscal integrity and transparency would be like Robert Mugabe advising the U.N. on human rights.

Opposition MP, Steven Joyce, has been busying himself attacking the recently elected Labour-Green-NZ First Coalition government.

Despite barely moving into their new offices on 27 October, three days later Joyce was complaining;

“…New Zealanders are still none the wiser about the cost of the coalition’s programme and the impact on their back pockets. They also have a right to know whether the new Government’s spending plans in actual dollars will match the cast-iron commitments Labour repeatedly made before the election.”

Mr Joyce should settle down and take a deep breath. The coalition government has only been sworn in since 26 October.

The new government’s policies will be better costed than National’s unaffordable tax-cuts of 2009 and 2010. Those tax-cuts cost this country $2 billion p.a. according to the Parliamentary Library.

John Key has defended his party’s planned program of tax cuts, after Treasury numbers released today showed the economic outlook has deteriorated badly since the May budget. The numbers have seen Treasury reducing its revenue forecasts and increasing its predictions of costs such as benefits. Cash deficits … is predicted to blow out from around $3 billion a year to around $6 billion a year.

VERY FEW NEW ZEALANDERS would have the slightest idea who Doug Andrew was or is. And yet, in his role as an economic advisor to the then Leader of the Opposition, David Lange, Andrew was one of the people who helped prepare the way for “Rogernomics” – the introduction of neoliberalism to New Zealand. Seconded in the early 1980s from Treasury – then a hotbed of “Chicago School” free market economics – Andrew was one of the principal conduits through which the economic ideas animating the governments of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan found their way into the policy-making forums of the New Zealand Labour Party.

Thirty-four years later, another economist, also with a Treasury (and Reserve Bank!) background, is proffering policy advice to another Labour Finance Minister. Craig Renney, identified by Stuff’s Vernon Small as one of the key “back room players” in Jacinda Ardern’s new Labour-NZ First-Green Government, has become Grant Robertson’s “economics adviser”; “the man who did the grunt-work on the Alternative Budget – and disproved National’s claim of a ‘fiscal hole’.”

And, that’s it. To find out any more about the person behind the person controlling New Zealand’s purse-strings, it is necessary to go hunting in the forests of the Internet.

Fortunately, Mr Renney is a pretty easy quarry to track down.

He appears to be a citizen of the United Kingdom, aged in his late 30s, who embarked on his professional career by enrolling in the University of Stirling as a student of Economics and Politics in 1997. After an intriguing stint in Prague (2000-2001) Renney undertook post-graduate study at the University of Northumbria in Newcastle, from which he received a Masters in Urban Policy and Sustainable Regeneration, and another, in Public Administration.

Upon leaving university, Renney worked, variously, in local government, the UK Audit Commission, and as a public-sector consultant. In 2012 he emigrated to New Zealand to take up an analyst’s position in the NZ Treasury. Between 2014 and 2016 he was a Senior Policy Adviser in Steven Joyce’s Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment – from whence he was seconded to the Reserve Bank. In January of last year, he took on the job of Senior Economic Advisor in the Office of the Leader of the Opposition.

It’s an impressive CV. But, it tells us virtually nothing about the political leanings of its subject. The north-east of England, where Renney spent his university years, is generally regarded as the British Labour Party’s heartland. So, it is tempting to paint the advisor to our new Minister of Finance as a Geordie with traditional Labour sympathies. Certainly, the work he undertook for local governments in the north-east has the whiff of progressivism about it. On the other hand, Renney’s student years coincide with those of Tony Blair’s “New Labour” Government. So, it’s just as easy to see him as an eager follower of Anthony Gidden’s “Third Way” economic and social project.

The point is, we don’t know anything like enough about Craig Renney, let alone the direction in which he is steering our new Minister of Finance. And, dammit, we should know! Thirty-four years ago, advice was being tended to Roger Douglas that led directly to the radical restructuring of the entire economy and society of New Zealand – and we knew nothing about it!

This is what the New Zealand historian, High Oliver, had to say about what was happening to Roger Douglas all those years ago:

“Clearly an enormous shift had taken place in Douglas’s positions on economic policy and it appears that most of this shift occurred in the latter half of 1983. It is also apparent that the shift was towards the kind of free market economics that were espoused by the Treasury. It cannot be proved that the shift in ideas resulted from the influence of Treasury officials; however, it can be shown that it coincided in time with the presence in the Opposition Leader’s Office of Doug Andrew, a Treasury adviser with whom Douglas developed close links … During his time with the Labour Opposition Andrew produced papers on a range of economic policy topics and debated with existing opinions in the Caucus Economic Committee. Andrew argued for lower levels of trade protection as the key economic policy instrument. He argued for floating the currency as a matter of course.”

Similarly, it is possible to show that Labour’s adoption of its radically self-limiting “Budget Responsibility Rules” coincided in time with the presence in the Leader of the Opposition’s Office of an economic adviser from the UK called Craig Renney. The same Craig Renney identified by Vernon Small as the person who did the “grunt work” on Labour’s Alternative Budget.

But what, exactly, does that mean? Is Craig merely putting flesh on the bones of Grant’s, and the Labour Policy Council’s, ideas? Or, are Grant and Labour merely repeating ideas and policy positions fed to them by Craig? And, if it’s the latter, then what are the ideas and policies our new government is being asked to swallow?

It is a question that has always intrigued me: “Who is more powerful? The person with a loaded rifle? Or the person who supplies the ammunition, places the rifle in another’s hands – and tells them who to shoot?”

You know, it is a peculiar thing to wake up to various people demanding the expulsion of an Iranian diplomat for remarks he made at a private gathering about the state of Israel.

I mean, correct me if I’m wrong about this … but it was not Iran which boldly threatened a state of war with our country only a few months ago, now, was it.

I have not viewed Secretary Ghahremani’s speech in its entirity, and am running off the quotes which have been extracted therefrom to bedeck the sensationalist Sunday newspapers all breathlessly seeking to cover this story.

But going off these, I can only ask where, exactly, it was that he erred?

Was it with the contention that Israel has been ‘fuelling terrorism’ in order to advance its geopolitical objectives? Surely not. After all, the Israelis themselves admitted to actively assisting Al-Nusra [better known as the local franchisee of Al-Qaeda operating in Syria]. Perhaps it was his comment that the state in question frequently attempts to “deceive the world” with the ever-widening gulf between its rhetoric of enthusiasm for peace and diplomacy … and a litany of transgressions even in recent times I hardly need to list for their familiarity.

Maybe there is objection to the Israeli state’s policy and impetus being designated “anti-human” … and yet it seems pretty plainly apparent that on everything from the [now thankfully officially discontinued] involuntary sterilization of its black citizenry through to the ongoing illegal blockades, incursions, detentions, airstrikes, etc. etc. etc. that it is rather avowedly anti *some* humans at the very least.

It is true that Secretary Ghahremani’s remarks may, in their now public disclosure, be regarded as “inflammatory”. But unless there is something significantly salacious in the rest of his speech that has as-yet gone unreported, I am not entirely sure I would suggest that anything he has said is manifestly counter-factual.

And we do enter into a rather .. odd situation if historical truths and contemporary realities are unable to be voiced because they may potentially be deemed “inflammatory”.

I mean, the pathway that takes us down, I might find myself subject to censure &amp; vilification for simply pointing out that the pattern of Israeli-Kiwi relations over the past two decades has been characterized by an ever-escalating series of incidences more befitting outright foes than nominal ‘friends’.

Or is it “inflammatory” to mention such things as the Israeli passport-harvesting for overseas espionage at the expense of people such as a profoundly disabled tetraplegic New Zealander; the alleged activities of similar personnel in Christchurch in 2011 with the target of our national policing computer-system; or even the not-quite-Declaration-of-War from the Netanyahu Government late last year.

In any case, I do not seek to support nor exculpate the remarks uttered by some of the other speakers Secretary Ghahrameni shared a stage with back in June. Those can be considered on their own relative merits [or lack thereof].

But it is not the accountant from Mt Albert, nor the visiting Cleric whom I am seeing the loudest calls for expulsion from our country in reference to.

Instead, these are being foisted in the direction of a diplomat clearly articulating the long-held position of his Government, on the occasion of a solemn commemoration and solidarity-extension to an oppressed and marginalized people.

With that in mind, I can only wonder whether the opprobium presently being heaped in Secretary Ghahremani’s direction has less to do with what he said .. and more to do with some people being profoundly uneasy with the progressive normalization of both our relations with Iran – as well as the escalatingly positive role that the Iranians have found themselves playing with regard to the broader security situation in the Middle East these past few years.

Who knows. “Haters”, as they say, “gonna hate”.

Although it would be a pretty unctuous & unfortunate situation if this man WERE to be banished from our country for speaking in support of a people we have previously pledged to help, his only ‘crime’ that’s thus far been made out in any detail, the remarks of some of those who happened to be in the room with him at the time.

Most of us will remember the Helen Clark Labour government elected in 1999.

Like the incoming Labour-led government of Jacinda Ardern the Clark-led government came after nine years of appalling attacks on workers and families on low incomes. Across the country its election was greeted with relief and high expectations for progressive change. People looked to Labour for significant gains for workers and families on low incomes. It failed to deliver.

Clark was elected with a “pledge card” of five promises – as a teacher the one I remember was the promise to end the bulk funding of teacher salaries.

Clark duly implemented the five pledge-card promises in the first six months or so but for the next eight and half years largely just managed the free market for the wealthy. Families on low incomes went backwards until Working for Families was finally introduced in 2004. But even this package left out the most vulnerable families and children – those on benefits – who were discriminated against through being denied the in-work tax credit.

It’s important to realise also that this package was and is in effect a subsidy on low wages paid by employers. Labour uses the same approach when market rents skyrocketed out of families’ ability to pay. The accommodation supplement (a subsidy on high rents which goes straight into the back pocket of the country’s landlords) was Labour’s answer.

Despite eight years of strong economic growth and budget surpluses, by the time she left parliament Helen Clark had left 175,000 children living below the poverty line.

There are some encouraging signs this Labour-led government will not be a “pledge-card” government.

If it can develop and maintain programmes of change across housing, health, welfare, the environment, employment rights etc then while it will never be a revolutionary government, it could be a transformational government.

In the first instance progressive people must hold the new government to its word.

On 2 November 1917, at the height of the First World War, Britain’s imperial voice expressed itself in a statement of intent from its Foreign Secretary, Lord Balfour, to Lord Rothschild – for passing on to the Zionist Federation. The message is known as the Balfour Declaration. The 30-year-long British occupation of Palestine that followed the allied World War One victory led to the unilateral Zionist declaration of ‘independence’ in 1948 and the establishment of Israel in Palestine. The Palestinian people had been encouraged to understand that, following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, they would be allowed self-determination in their homeland. They had been seriously misled. In 1919, Balfour admitted to the new Foreign Secretary Lord Curzon:

“The weak point of our position is of course that in the case of Palestine we deliberately and rightly decline to accept the principle of self-determination.”

That same year, Balfour also wrote to Lord Curzon:

“in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country… the Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land . . . In short, so far as Palestine is concerned, the Powers have made no statement of fact which is not admittedly wrong, and no declaration of policy which, at least in the letter, they have not always intended to violate.” Ingram p.73. See Nutting

For 69 years the Zionist enterprise, with the collusion of its powerful Western allies, has continued to demonstrate utter disregard for the Palestinian people, denying them their culture, their history and even their humanity.

The Palestinian-American academic, political activist and literary critic, Edward Said (1935-2003) eloquently evaluated the Declaration as follows:

“What is important about the Declaration is, first, that it has long formed the juridical basis of Zionist claims to Palestine, and second, more crucial for our purposes here, that it was a statement whose positional force can only be appreciated when the demographic, or human realities of Palestine are clearly understood. For the Declaration was made (a) by a European power (b) about a non-European territory (c) in a flat disregard of both the presences and the wishes of the native majority resident in that territory, and (d) it took the form of a promise about this same territory to another foreign group, that this foreign group might, quite literally, make this territory a national home for the Jewish people.”

The Jewish academic Ilan Pappe, director of the European Centre of Palestine Studies at the English University of Exeter, has made the following observation:

“The natural Palestinian rejection of the notion of dividing their homeland with settlers, the majority of whom had arrived only a few years earlier, fell on deaf Western ears. Locating the Jews in Palestine, without the need to come to terms with what Europe did to them in World War Two, became the easiest corridor out of Europe’s ugliest historical moment. As is clear today from the documents, the Zionist leadership regarded the partition resolution as both international legitimisation for a Jewish state in Palestine, and the Palestinian rejection of it as a valid pretext for the ethnic cleansing of the native population.”

Ideology is distinct from culture, race and nationhood. Political ideologies may seize the loyalty of any people at different periods of history but while the people continue, ideologies inevitably fall from fashion over time. No ideology can claim to speak for a whole people and most Jews, particularly those who are religious, opposed Zionism at the beginning of the Twentieth Century. Balfour knew this very well. Bernard Regan, author of the book The Balfour Declaration: Empire, the Mandate and resistance in Palestine. 1917 -1936 reminds us that one of the most “vociferous” opponents of the Balfour Declaration was actually the only Jewish member of the Cabinet, Sir Edwin Montagu, Secretary of State for India:

“He believed that support for the ‘principle’ of a ‘National Home for the Jewish people’ would legitimate the spread of anti-Semitism already rampant in parts of Eastern Europe.”

Montagu believed that at least half the Jews in Britain opposed Zionism and his was not the only Jewish voice raised against Balfour. Regan writes that Mr C. G. Montefiore, President of the Anglo-Jewish Association, was critical of political Zionism’s founder Theodor Herzl’s assertion that “anti-Semitism was eternal, and that it was hopeless to expect its removal”. The Zionist enterprise depends on anti-Semitism as a smokescreen to divert attention from the abuses of human rights committed by Israel’s leaders. Regan notes that “Mr L. L. Cohen, Chairman of the Jewish Board of Guardians thought that since a Jewish home in Palestine would in any case only be able to take a fraction of world Jewry it would not resolve the problem of anti-Semitism.”

Today, the news media and many of our politicians, influenced so powerfully by the Israel Lobby, continue to ignore Jewish and Palestinian voices that are united in legitimate and necessary protest against both Israel’s founding ideology and the human rights violations that it engenders. There is a universal right to freedom of expression and it is time for us to heed the voices of those Jews for whom Zionism is as far removed from Judaism as could possibly be conceived.

Many Jews deplore the Zionist ideology’s inhumanity. Here are just a handful: Anna Baltzer of Jewish Voice for Peace, Miko Peled, the son of a Zionist General, who also served in the Israeli Army. We ask people to read the works of Gideon Levy and the historian Ilan Pappe. There are many, many more – including celebrities from the worlds of science, art, music, drama and comedy. Jews and non-Jews alike have the right to individually and collectively protest in the name of justice and respect for international humanitarian law. There is nothing racist in that. In fact, these voices, reflecting the underlying humanity of Jews and Palestinians, offer the best hope of peace. All they ask is that we join them. Let us open our hearts and minds and put humanity before politics and ideology – it might catch on!

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/10/29/balfours-disastrous-legacy/feed/9Socialism and Populism: The Party is Just Beginning!https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/10/28/socialism-and-populism-the-party-is-just-beginning/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/10/28/socialism-and-populism-the-party-is-just-beginning/#commentsFri, 27 Oct 2017 19:33:21 +0000https://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=93587

ZACH CASTLES is sitting, gutted, in a café overlooking the Thames. The former “National ministerial adviser”, no longer having any National ministers to advise, has clearly relocated himself to a more promising political marketplace. Even so, our brave young capitalist has taken the time to share his thoughts with The Spinoff. (Who else!) And, oh, comrades, what thoughts they are!

He begins by imploring National to defend capitalism from “the coalition of socialists and populists” who are attempting (apparently Jacinda hasn’t quite got the hang of this yet) to unleash class war across New Zealand’s green and pleasant land. Poor Zach, it’s the sheer ingratitude of the Left that upsets him the most. Don’t these ingrates realise that “nearly one billion people over the last 20 years [have] been lifted out of poverty because of it.”

Really, Zach? The dragooning of millions of subsistence farmers and their children into the factories, warehouses and shops of China, India and Brazil. The super-exploitation perpetrated by the burgeoning bourgeoisie of these countries. The impossible working conditions. The relentless speed-ups. The graft and corruption upon which so much of their “economic growth” depends. The unbelievable environmental despoliation left in its wake. This is what you call being “lifted out of poverty”? This is what you are asking National to defend?

It sure is. In fact, according to Zach: “the very ‘neoliberalism’ the incoming prime minister criticises, and yet refuses to define [Oh, for God’s sake, just look it up on Wikipedia, man!] has helped many Kiwis out of a life of welfare dependence and into the dignity of a job.”

Ah, but there’s a big difference, isn’t there, Zach, between the sort of job you’re heading for in London and the jobs which beneficiaries are forced to accept, or face being sanctioned into abject poverty. Pumping gas for the minimum wage. Or being paid $17.00 an hour to stand all day behind a till while your feet swell and your calves cramp-up. That’s not the sort of job you’re about to take up – is it Zach? And those are most certainly not the sort of wages you’re anticipating from whatever right-wing political party or think-tank you’re about to be snapped-up by. It just wouldn’t be dignified. Not for a man of your talents. Would it Zach?

But, then, Zach isn’t accustomed to thinking about such matters. If he was, then he simply couldn’t write a paragraph like this:

“The return of the left to government now means everything that makes New Zealand such a role model, at a time of supposed global despair, now hangs in the balance. We were meant to be the poster child for globalism, free trade and ambition; now we are being set up as the test flight for a return to the 1970s. A world Jacinda Ardern’s own voters have never actually known.”

“Never actually known”? Really, Zach? I’m well aware that most Kiwis over 55 voted for your lot, but most is not the same thing as all. (Just as receiving most of the votes cast is not the same as receiving a majority of the votes cast!) I was very much alive and kicking in the 1970s, and let me tell you, those were great years to be young.

There were jobs for everyone – at good, union-negotiated, wages. The state loaned young couples money, at 3 percent interest, to buy their own home. All mothers received a generous Family Benefit. Tertiary education was as close to free as makes no difference. Ah, Zach, the manifold evils of socialism and populism!

Zach claims the National Party subscribes to the ideas of Edmund Burke, but this attempt to drape the clothing of a respectable political philosophy over National’s naked worship of power, simply will not wash. Burke understood the critical importance of tradition, and the wisdom it was able to impart to generations raised in its embrace. But National has never been a respecter of tradition – at least not of the core New Zealand traditions of fairness and decency. Indeed, the party was founded with the express purpose of thwarting the organised political expression of fairness and decency.

Presumably, that is why Zach can hail the “radicalism” of Ruth Richardson; and why he speaks glowingly of his party’s role in “leading transformative social and economic change”. Transformative, eh? Well, yes, as someone who remembers a New Zealand in which everyone worked, was comfortably housed, and could look forward with confidence to their children living in a happier more prosperous world than the one in which they’d been raised, I’d have to say that “transformation” is exactly the right word. What I’m much less certain about, however, is whether Kiwis sleeping in cars, while their children go hungry, was the change most New Zealanders were looking for.

So, you go on looking out over the Thames, Zach. And, by all means, urge your National Party comrades to seize this wonderful opportunity to “make capitalism cool again”. Back here in God’s Own Country, though, I’ll go on looking at the clips of Prime Minister Ardern being welcomed back from Government House by thousands of delighted New Zealanders. I’ll listen again, as she promises to lead “a government of kindness”, and I’ll wish her – and the 72-year-old patriot who gave progressive New Zealand the votes it needed to govern – all the success that “socialism and populism” can bring.

Tracey Martin – one of Parliament’s best kept “secrets”. One to watch out for as her career in politics is on the rise. Recently elevated to Deputy Leader of NZ First, she has the potential to increase her Party’s public approval

.

NZ First’s Tracey Martin, Minister for Children

.

Nearly four years later, and my prediction has become reality. On 25 October, incoming Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, announced that NZ First’s talented Tracey Martin would be appointed to the new Labour-NZF-Green cabinet as a full-ranking Minister;

… Ms Ardern said New Zealand First’s Tracey Martin would be a strong advocate for children in her ministerial position, which also oversees Oranga Tamariki, the Ministry for Vulnerable Children.

I fully endorse Ms Martin’s appointment to this position. In this blogger’s own experience, Ms Martin should prove to be a dedicated champion to lift children out of the poverty-trap created after thirtythree years of the failed neo-liberal experiment.

There was wide-ranging discussion between Jazmine and Ms Martin with the MP treating her guest with respect. She listened to Jazmine for a full hour, discussing dental treatment in schools; food in schools; a warrant of fitness for all rental housing, and poverty in general.

As I reported at the time;

Ms Martin recalled when, in her youth, every school had a dental nurse and clinic-room on school-grounds, and children’s teeth were properly looked after,

“Our policy is that all children must have access to free dental healthcare for the period of their schooling.”

.

In depth discussion surrounding the nature of school meals drew constructive discussion from Jazmine and Tracey.

.

This blogger also reported Ms Martin’s willingness to draw from other political parties;

Ms Martin agreed and referred to a “brilliant speech” by Russell Norman (Green Co-Leader), where he revealed that government had lost $2 billion of of last year’s tax-take. She said, “three years of that and we wouldn’t have to sell any state assets“.

Had those tax cuts [2009 and 2010] not happened, we could afford free healthcare for all children.

Ms Martin referred to the Mana Party’s financial transactions tax, which she said Annette Sykes called “the Hone Heke” tax, and which “was worth looking at, and worth taking really seriously“. It was understood that such a FTT would have to be internationally implemented, as it might otherwise risk causing a capital-flight.

The strength of the Labour-NZF-Greens coalition are the core values which each constituent party has to offer. All three have constructive, forward-looking policies and dedicated, intelligent people willing to deliver them for a better future for our country.

If the willingness of a member of parliament to sit and listen to a sixteen year old is any indication, then our new Minister for Children has been an encouraging, positive first step for our new government.

Somewhat presciently, I wrote five years ago;

The discussion moved to a related issue, and Ms Heka asked about NZ First’s policy regarding having a high-ranking minister – or even the Prime Minister – as the Minister for Children. The premise being that if the Prime Minister was also the Minister for Children, then it would give extra impetus to policies as they might impact on his portfolio; the nations young people.

Ms Martin agreed saying,

“Well, to keep that in the view, I would have thought. To make sure that it’s part of every conversation; how will this, downstream, affect children.“

If the Prime Minister was Minister for children, it was suggested, then as with US President, Harry Truman, “The Buck Stops Here” on child poverty issues.

Jacinda Ardern has appointed herself Minister for Child Poverty Reduction. Hopefully, Ms Ardern and Ms Martin will create a powerful partnership with which to combat and eradicate the scourge of child poverty in this country.

Postscript: Meanwhile, back in Rabid Rightwing Ratbag Land…

Right-wing idiocy and mis-information has reached new depths in West Australia with the publication of a scurrilous piece of fake news/opinion, by conservative so-called journalist and former The West Australian editor, Paul Murray.

Well, I’d describe it as hyperbole. If they haven’t got enough to survive they would be dying.

[…]

An inquiry by the New Zealand Herald found Labour was using a very broad definition of homelessness by international standards and judged that claim “mostly fiction”.

While Labour used a university study showing 41,000 people were “severely housing deprived” — meaning sleeping rough, living in cars or garages, or in emergency or temporary shelters — official government figures for those “without habitable accommodation” was about 4000.

If poverty and homelessness was a “fiction” as Murray asserted, then the Leader of the National Party promised on 5 September, in front of hundreds of thousands of viewers, to raise 100,000 non-existent children out of poverty. And the mainstream media bought it.

Quite a ‘trick’.

He also derided Winston Peters’ decision for his choice in coalition partner;

These themes were echoed by Peters when justifying his decision to bypass the Nationals who won 44.45 per cent of the vote and to install Labour which polled just 36.89 and only 43.16 when combined with the supportive Greens.

Murray omitted to mention that a Labour-Green-NZ First bloc represented 50.4% of the popular vote. Obviously basic arithmetic is not his strong point because 50.4% beats 44.45% every time.

But his outright misrepresentation of facts reached it’s nadir when he shamelessly claimed;

The NZ Nationals got debt down to 38 per cent of GDP compared to Australia’s 47 per cent. Watch that figure skyrocket.

Either Murray is woefully ignorant of recent New Zealand history – or he is wilfully lying. Anyone with even a basic knowledge of facts should know that by 2008 Labour had paid down net debt to 5.4%;

.

.

National did not pay down debt. They grew it massively, fuelled by two unaffordable tax cuts (2009 and 2010) and shameless corporate welfare.

Never let facts get in the way of a right-wingers flight of fantasy.

This is the sort of rubbish that Labour, NZ First, and the Greens will have to deal with in the coming years.

But in New Zealand the minimum wage have been up to 80% of the average wage just after World War II, and was two-thirds (for adult males at least) as late as the mid-1970s.

During the nine years of the previous National government from 1990 to 1999, there was only one increase in the adult minimum wage and the real value of the minimum wage dropped from about 50% to 40% of the average wage. No minimum wage applied to workers under 20 until 1994 when one was established for 16-19 year-olds at 60% of the adult rate.

Then Labour lifted the rates from 1999 to 2008 to restore the 50% level of the average wage before leaving office.

Just as importantly, the application of a youth rate of only 60% of the adult rate from aged under 20 was progressively eliminated by increasing the percentage and dropping the age, first to 18 and then 16.

This process was in part a product of the ongoing campaign by Unite Union others to lift wages and end youth rates in the fast food industry through the SupersizeMyPay.Com campaign.

National has maintained around the 50% percentage of the average wage for the adult rate and even increased it slightly since they returned to office. But they have restored a youth rate that is 80% of the adult rate that can apply for up to six months for new employees aged 16-18 or trainees.

Again, at least in part, this was pushed along by a massive campaign by Unite Union and others to push the minimum wage from $12 to $15 at that time that involved collecting 200,000 names on a petition.

The average wage increased by 8.8% in the four years to March 2017.

If we apply a similar increase through to March 2021 then the average wage will reach $32.53.

With a minimum wage of $20 at that time it will be equal to 61.5% of the average wage.

This will be a significant step forward towards to goal of the Council of Trade Unions to make the minimum wage two-thirds of the average wage.

Currently, this percentage would equal today’s living wage number of $20.20 an hour.

Making the living wage the minimum wage is a realistic and achievable goal after stage one has been achieved when we reach $20 an hour on April 1, 2021.

Currently, most of the collective agreements that Unite has signed have been based on a “minimum wage plus” formula. That means as the minimum wage moves up all rates above the minimum move up as well.

In addition, in the last round of negotiations with fast food companies, we insisted that there needed to be at least a small increase above the minimum wage increase for workers when they started. McDonald’s and Restaurant Brands agreed to at least ten cents increase each year of their agreements. So new McDonald’s workers will be on at least 30 cents an hour above the minimum wage in April 2020.

For more senior and supervisory staff that will mean that most will be on or above the equivalent of the living wage then as well.

As the minimum adult wage moves towards the Living Wage then workers will simply be able to make ends meet after a weeks work, according to a statement from Unite National Secretary Gerard Hehir.

“It will make a huge difference to hundreds of thousands who most desperately need help” said Gerard Hehir. “Over four years it is a 6.75% average increase per year. That is not excessive when we currently have full-time workers relying on welfare support, state subsidies and charity – and still struggling. Employers need to pay their workers enough to live – it really is that simple.

“Winston Peters was spot on when he said many who felt capitalism was working against them were ‘not wrong’. The starkest measure is the Labour share of GDP in New Zealand which has fallen from nearly 59% in 1980 to only 50% in 2015 – 5% below the OECD average. Where has it gone? Corporate profits as a share of GDP have gone from 10% in 1980 to almost 25% in 2015. We shouldn’t be afraid of asking businesses to start reversing that trend – it is well overdue and only fair.

“The scaremongering around loss of jobs is just that according to Unite: When Unite successfully campaigned to abolish youth rates in 2008 there were dire predictions of mass youth joblessness. Youth employment actually increased in the years that followed. Recent research has consistently shown that hysterical claims of minimum wage increases causing rampant inflation and unemployment are simply wrong (see Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment? by John Schmitt ).

“Everyone will benefit from the increases. Those wages will be overwhelmingly spent in local communities – benefitting local businesses. That will particularly help regional economies. Low paid workers won’t be jetting off overseas or importing expensive cars and luxury goods – they will be looking after their families, paying down debt and maybe even saving some money. The biggest barrier to getting into KiwiSaver is actually not being able to afford the weekly contributions

“Employers who don’t think their workers are worth $20 an hour should look at their business model. New Zealand has a productivity problem. Rather than relying on low wages and low skills, they should be looking to make their employees more productive. Investing in skills, training and new technology is the answer – not paying your workers the least the law allows you and complaining that it is too much.

“Taxpayers will be better off as well. The huge rental and income subsidies to low paid workers will actually reduce. This exposes who these government payments are really subsidising – low wage employers rather than their low paid employees. It is absurd that the loudest voices against minimum wage increases are also often the loudest in demanding tax cuts and complaining about government subsidies.

“On behalf of our members, and all low paid workers in New Zealand, Unite congratulates the NZ First, Labour and the Greens for making a real difference. There is a lot more to do – but it is a great start” concluded Gerard Hehir.

CAN WE REALLY DO THIS? As the euphoria of victory wears off, and the sheer enormity of the challenge confronting progressive New Zealand reveals itself, it would be foolish not to feel just a little bit daunted. We face an economic system without the slightest idea how to solve the problems created by its discredited policies and practices. Nevertheless, the Neoliberal Establishment remains very strong, and just as soon as it settles upon an effective strategy of resistance, the fightback will begin.

Two principle lines of attack present themselves. The first, sketched out in this morning’s NZ Herald editorial, is to paint the new Labour-led coalition as little more than a pink-tinted continuation of Bill English’s National Government.

The Herald’s leader-writer dismisses any notion that the new regime represents some sort of sharp break with Neoliberalism. He is at pains to point out that all the key elements of the “Open Economy” remain firmly entrenched. All we are hearing from Labour, he says, is the rhetoric of change. But, even the most cursory examination of the Labour-NZ First-Green Government’s priorities, argues the Herald’s leader-writer, reveals them to be little changed from those of the Clark-Cullen years: priorities to which both John Key and Bill English were more than happy to subscribe for 9 years.

This is a subtle strategy, directed principally at the new government’s most ideologically-committed supporters. Its purpose is to demoralise, antagonise, and inflame suspicion. At its heart stands the figure of Grant Robertson: Finance Minister and close friend of Prime Minister Ardern. As the prime-mover of the Labour-Greens’ self-limiting “Budget Responsibility Rules”, Robertson has already positioned himself as New Zealand Capitalism’s first line of defence against left-wing fiscal recklessness. By praising Robertson’s political moderation and economic orthodoxy, the Herald’s mouthpiece intends to divide and conquer the Neoliberal Establishment’s most coherent progressive critics.

The most obvious deficiency with this “demoralisation” strategy is that it leaves the Opposition with very little room in which to manoeuvre politically. If the Labour-NZ First-Green Government is really just a slightly pinker version of its pale-blue predecessor, then how can National attack it with any credibility – or success? To raise a political storm violent enough to reclaim the Treasury Benches requires the red-hot passion of the fanatic – not the lofty sneers of the neoliberal intellectual who recognises kindred economic spirits when he sees them.

That Richard Prebble recognised this in an instant is unsurprising. Few living New Zealand politicians can claim a better rapport with the dark animal spirits needed to rouse this country’s right-wing voters. It was Prebble who recognised the futility of Act attempting to sell pure free-market policies to an electorate that wasn’t buying them. It was only when he identified the party with law and order, crime and punishment, environmental scepticism, and the deep anti-Maori prejudices of rural and provincial New Zealand that Act was able to lift itself up and over the 5 percent MMP threshold. Like Rob Muldoon before him, Prebble understands that to make right-wing Kiwis angry enough to destroy the Left, you first have to frighten them out of their wits.

Hence Prebble’s outrageous claim that Winston Peters is guilty of mounting a coup d’etat against Kiwi democracy. It is not his purpose, and neither, I suspect, does he believe it should be National’s, to convince New Zealanders that they have nothing to fear from what, in all likelihood, will prove to be a pretty mild and responsible Labour-led Government. His aim, and almost certainly the aim of most of the National Party caucus (and their surrogates in the mainstream news media) is to splash as much red paint over Jacinda Ardern, Winston Peters and James Shaw as is humanly possible.

The Labour-NZ First-Green Government will be presented by these hard-line rightists as an illegitimate and dangerously anti-capitalist regime. Its anti-business and anti-farming policies, they will argue, are not only incompatible with genuine Kiwi democracy, but also constitute a direct attack on the sanctity of private property. As such, it will not be enough to merely oppose this far-left government; it will be necessary to fight it head-on.

Interviewed on RNZ’s “morning Report” this morning, Ken Shirley, CEO of the Road Transport Forum (and former right-wing comrade-in-arms with Richard Prebble and Roger Douglas in both the Labour and Act parties) reminded listeners of the massive truck-owners protest in the dying days of Helen Clark’s government. If Jacinda’s government went ahead with its plans to use the Road User Charges collected from the RTF’s members for purposes other than the maintenance and construction of roads, then similar protests could be expected.

Prior to the coup that toppled the left-wing “Popular Unity” government of Salvador Allende in 1973, the country’s economy had been made to “scream” by a nationwide strike organised by the right-wing truckers’ union and supported by the bosses of Chile’s biggest trucking companies. The ensuing shortages brought thousands of angry, middle-class “housewives” onto the streets, banging their pots and pans in protest. The right-wing newspapers maintained a relentless barrage of criticism against the “anti-democratic” and “incompetent” government of Chile’s self-proclaimed Marxist president. Calls for Allende’s forcible removal grew louder and more frequent until, on 11 September 1973, General Pinochet was obliged to overthrow the “communist dictator”.

A very similar project of economic destabilisation and political mobilisation was set in train by the right-wing opponents of the left-wing Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, in 2002.

As a strategy of right-wing resistance, it has proved successful in a distressingly large number of countries. Progressive New Zealanders would be most unwise to believe, even for a moment, that it cannot happen here.

Many will, like me, be disappointed that there is no commitment on the TPPA in Labour’s agreements with New Zealand First and the Greens.

To date, Labour has confirmed that it will seek to amend New Zealand’s investment schedule to allow the ban on non-residents buying residential property. In response to a question yesterday, Jacinda Ardern said the question of foreign investor’s rights to sue the government in controversial offshore tribunals, known as the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), is still being discussed.

Q: [re position on TPPA]

A: I found a huge amount of consensus, actually in talks with NZ First around our position on TPP and TPP-11. And that consensus particularly sits around our view on banning foreign overseas buyers from purchasing existing homes, and also ongoing concerns with ISDS clauses. We’ll go into negotiations with that view in mind, of course we don’t want to undermine our negotiating position, but it was very clear from the talks that we have the same concerns, but at the same time we both support increasing exports and export growth for New Zealand, and representing those who are exporting to the best of our abilities.

Q: Will you walk away from the deal if you are not able to get those concessions?

A: I’m not undermining our negotiating position by answering that question.

Winston Peters said the same when he announced he was choosing Labour.

That’s not strong enough for some of us. But we should also not panic. This is a time to remind all three parties in Government – especially Labour – that they said in their select committee minority reports that they would not vote in favour of ratifying the original TPPA. It is also an opportunity for them to build and sustain a sense of legitimacy and credibility, as well as optimism and enthusiasm, among those who voted for change.

Beyond that, we need to remind the rest of the country that the world is changing. The TPPA model is no longer the norm; it is increasingly the outlier.

Supporters of the deal with warn the Government against revisiting the deal, because trade ministers or leaders from the remaining 11 TPPA countries are supposed to decide its future when they meet from 9-12 November on the margins of APEC in Da Nang, Vietnam.

In reality, there is no such urgency. The pressure to conclude the deal is politically driven and artificial. It’s almost inconceivable that the TPPA-11 can be sorted before the Vietnam meeting.

Next Monday officials from the eleven remaining TPPA parties will reconvene in Japan. They will continue working through a list of 50 items that different countries want to put on ice unless and until the US re-joins. Relatively few of those items have been settled.

Some countries reportedly want to go further and change aspects of the text. New Zealand under National, with Japan and Australia, previously said that reopening text was impossible. A newly elected New Zealand government has every right to reverse that position, and insist on meeting its commitments to the people who voted for it and serving the interests of the country.

The new Government should also insist on taking its time for the kind of detailed economic and employment analyses, health impact assessments, and proper processes of public consultation they said was needed for the original TPPA.

It is common among negotiating countries for new governments to take some time to review their position after an election. The Obama administration did it, Canada did it, Japan took some time to decide how to respond to Trump’s withdrawal.

Let’s remember what the parties that make up the current Government said.

Labour objected that the economic evidence produced by National was based on ‘a wildly optimistic scenario’, whose assumptions ‘are not credible, nor are they a basis for any responsible government to proceed in signing a binding agreement with consequences as far reaching as the TPPA.’ There was a potential for job losses as jobs were offshored to lower cost centres.

They said National should have ‘adopteda model of rigorous consultation with opposition parties, academia, unions, and business, [and] commissioned modelling and developed policy responses to address concerns about employment, income distribution, and public health impacts.’ Labour explicitly joined with other submitters and opposition parties in calling for new studies that addressed those questions.

Of course, National ignored them, and proceeded with the TPPA-11 without even bothering to update its flawed National Interest Analysis to take account of the US exit.

On top of this came Labour’s concerns about sovereignty: ‘The Labour Party believes the ability to act in the interests of New Zealand residents and citizens is a principle that builds faith in participative democracy. Unnecessary weakening of sovereign State powers achieves the opposite. … The current laissez-faire economic approach to economic management speaks to a level of resignation about an expected long-term decline in our nation’s financial security.’ Signing away the right to ban non-resident foreign investors from purchasing residential property was one element of that.

The Greens went further, condemning the TPPA as ‘a regressive document reflecting the ideological excesses of late-20th-century free-market neo-liberalism’.

New Zealand First led the demands to abandon ISDS and it still seems committed to that position. These days, that’s hardly a radical position. Despite its current protests, Business New Zealand told the OECD in 2012 that ISDS wasn’t necessary where other parties had sound judicial systems. We don’t have it in the investment protocol with Australia and it wasn’t in the P-4 that supposedly formed the basis of the TPPA.

Other countries with which New Zealand wants to negotiate, like India and Mercosur, have jettisoned ISDS and developed their own alternatives. The EU has a proposal for a standing investment court, although that’s more of a trap as it leaves in place the pro-investor rules that ISDS is the mechanism to enforce.

Most significantly, the US equivalent of a trade minister, Robert Lighthizer, has slammed the US corporate lobby for expecting special protections and ISDS in these agreements, when they should be taking insurance to protect their profits. If the US did want to re-join the TPPA in the foreseeable future, its current position would be to demand the removal of ISDS!

So there are numerous views among countries, large and small, about how to deal with investment in ‘trade’ agreements, if at all. The new Government has ample room to choose its own path.

If there was to be one message to the new government it is to reiterate Labour’s final sentence in the select committee report:

The TPPA will have ramifications for generations of New Zealanders. For their sake, we should not so lightly enter into an agreement which may exacerbate long-term challenges for our economy, workforce, and society.

These words should be written in neon lights above the entrance to the beehive.

The Israel Institute of New Zealand, in an article entitled Post Election outlook for New Zealand’s relationship with Israel, noted with pleasure that Winston Peters was now in the position of ‘king maker’. The article considered it was likely that a number of long-time National supporters had voted for Peters in this election because of his support for Israel. The Israel Institute hoped to see what it called clearer leadership on Israel if Bill English were to be in a position to form a government with support from Winston Peters. The Israel Institute’s New Zealand co-director Paul Moon was quoted as follows: Whichever party is put into power, the almost inevitable alliance with New Zealand First presents an opportunity for New Zealand to recalibrate its relations with Israel. Effectively, the government could draw a line under its disastrous sponsorship of UN Resolution 2334, and look to strengthen its ties with Israel.

International Law

Never mind the fact that Resolution 2334, incontrovertibly, brands Israel’s actions as being in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions. The Israel Institute regards the Resolution as disastrous because it exposes Israel’s violations of international humanitarian law. Even Israel’s most ardent ally, the United States of America, felt unable to vote against the Resolution, which confirms the fact that Israel’s behaviour has no legal validity.

The imposition of Israeli settlements on belligerently-Occupied Palestinian land constitutes a war crime under the provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Israel’s settlement programme violates international law and a number of conventions, including United Nations Security Resolutions 446 (1979), 452 (1979), 465 (1980), and, most recently, 2334 (2016). Israel is intent upon using its extremist settlers to superimpose its Zionist rule over the whole of historic Palestine. Statements and actions by Israel’s leaders demonstrate clearly that they are bent on both the annexation of the whole of Jerusalem and irreversible destruction of Palestine’s territorial contiguity.

NZ First’s foreign-affairs and trade policy opposes the previous government’s sponsorship of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334. NZ First’s website claims that the party promotes diplomacy as the first option in resolving international conflict. Yet it opposes the National-led Government’s sponsorship of UNSC2334. Considering that the Security Council Resolution quite rightly condemns Israel’s inhumane, armed violations of international law, New Zealand First needs to explain where the diplomacy might be in opposing a Resolution against such violence. This is a Resolution, after all, that passed without a single vote against. Will Labour and the Greens tolerate any attempt by New Zealand First to soften the pressure brought upon Israel through the adoption of UNSCR 2334?

Israel, the only Western state supplying weapons to Myanmar

Last month, the Zionist state’s lawyer, Shosh Shmueli, responding to a petition in the High Court of Justice from human rights activists demanding an end to the arms sales to Myanmar, told Israel’s High Court that it shouldn’t interfere in the country’s foreign relations. An earlier statement by the Israeli Defence Ministry, in March, had referred to the matter as purely diplomatic. The violence against the Rohingya has intensified and, in the past month, some 421,000 members of the Muslim minority have been forced to flee to neighbouring Bangladesh. The UN has also raised allegations of ethnic cleansing. Eitay Mack, the petitioners’ lawyer, noted that the European Union and the United States had imposed a trade embargo on Myanmar, formerly known as Burma. The junta’s leaders are boasting of their ties with Israel, the world’s most militarised nation, on their Facebook pages and the top US diplomat for refugees and migration, Simon Henshaw, has called on Suu Kyi to take action to protect the Rohingya. As annual UN General Assembly meetings continued, he expressed concern about reports of attacks, extrajudicial murders, rapes, burning of villages. Now Israel, the only country to have introduced nuclear weapons to the Middle East, plans to leave UNESCO.

UNESCO

True to its founding objectives, this month the UNESCO Director-General welcomed the awarding of the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize to ICAN, the International Campaign for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons. It is a resounding call to global responsibility and a stronger diplomacy for peace, she declared. This, of course, is anathema to Israel, which refuses to sign the treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Neither will Israel co-operate with the IAEA. For Israel, the United Nations is nothing but a hindrance to its ambitions. Thirty-seven countries founded the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation – UNESCO. New Zealand signed up to the Constitution of UNESCO, on 16 November 1945, which came into force on 4 November 1946. The world was seeking to create an organisation that would embody a genuine culture of peace. There was belief in the need to establish an organisation that would further the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind in order to prevent the outbreak of yet another world war.

UNESCO and education

UNESCO is responsible for co-ordinating, among other things, international co-operation in education so that each child and citizen has access to good quality education; a basic human right and an indispensable prerequisite for sustainable development. Israel has a dismal record of disrupting education for Palestinians, both within Israel and in the Occupied territories. On 27 September, Israeli forces closed the tunnel created to control movement between 16 towns and villages in north-west Jerusalem. The move disrupted study for more than 4,000 students in some 50 schools. On 7 October, the Israeli Army raided the Abu Nour Al-Badawi Bedouin Community in al-Eizariya and broke into a school under construction that was intended for the education of 58 children. Israeli troops then robbed the site of construction equipment in order to prevent the school being built. There have been many complaints from European Union member states over the destruction by Israel of donated schools and educational facilities.

Palestine Solidarity Network spokesperson, Debbie Abbas, reminds us that in 2012, our SuperFund withdrew from some investments in Israeli companies because of Israel’s behaviour but now . . . we are backing off from the international legal consensus of making Israel accountable for its actions against Palestinian civilians, she says, adding that our Government has refused to provide a copy of a film production agreement made last year with Israel. She noted that Israel goes into these bilateral deals for political reasons, to make it appear there is business as usual and divert attention away from Israel’s apartheid structure. It’s a strategy not dissimilar to apartheid era South Africa when it used international sport to divert attention away from its repression of the black majority in South Africa.

Last June, Israel hosted an ISDEF military exhibition it claims is recognised as the summit of business and defence enterprises that are, for Israel, a top national priority. Israel is looking for military solidarity because, it claims, the strategic realities that Israel faces dictate the need for close co-operation, communication and innovation. Yet, as ISDEF’s mission statement also says, 86% of attendees have buying power making ISDEF a highly effective platform for rapid business growth. That is where wealth is directed, and that is how modern science and technology are being harnessed. Israel leads the world in population-control for profit and it would be nothing less than complicity if New Zealand were to ignore Israel’s intransigence regarding UNSC Resolution 2334 and take part in joint ventures.

Foreign policy

On 4 January 2017, the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade (MFAT) website carried the following announcement that began:

UN Security Council adopts historic resolution on Israeli settlements

The United Nations Security Council has reaffirmed that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace. In passing Resolution 2334, the Security Council reiterated its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard.

The announcement ended with a comment by New Zealand’s Permanent Representative, Gerard van Bohemen:

every settlement creates false hope for the settlers that the land will one day be part of a greater Israel. Every settlement takes land away from Palestinians needing homes or farmland or roads.

The Balfour Declaration, the origin of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, has had many tragic consequences. The greatly increased support for the Zionist ideology led to the creation of Mandatory Palestine, which later became Israel and the Palestinian territories. The British Government’s lack of consideration for the indigenous Palestinian people was uncompromisingly expressed in the following remarks made by Balfour himself: . . . in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country…. Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land………. In short, so far as Palestine is concerned, the Powers have made no statement of fact which is not admittedly wrong, and no declaration of policy which, at least in the letter, they have not always intended to violate.

On Wednesday morning, 28 June, the Israeli Occupation Army raided Jubbet al-Dhib, plundering the village of 96 solar panels and destroying items that were less easy to remove. They had all been donated by the Netherlands. The New York Times reported that the Dutch Foreign Affairs Ministry was furious. But there was nothing extraordinary about Israel’s conduct. Israel had similarly plundered the village of a solar-powered public lighting system in 2009. The purpose of the Zionist state’s military Occupation of the West Bank is not for the benefit of the Palestinian people, quite the reverse – Israel’s presence there is plainly malevolent and self-serving. Does Winston Peters believe that collaborating with Israel, even as it continues to behave thus, would in any way help to modify its behaviour?

Jubbet al-Dhib lies in the shadow of two illegal Israeli settlement colonies, El David and Noqedim. The Noqedim settlement is home to Israeli Defence Minister, Avigdor Lieberman. On top of these oppressive settlements, Palestinian villagers have to cope with the fanatical presence of a number of additional Israeli colonial outposts that exist in violation of both Israeli and international law. Nevertheless, the outposts still enjoy connection to the Israeli power grid and access to other Occupation infrastructure. Israel demolished more than 300 Palestinian buildings and infrastructure facilities in 2016. According to The Jerusalem Post, all of them had been installed with the support of international organisations or with the financial help of the European Union. The Israeli Government’s decision to prevent the use of solar energy technology in Jubbet al-Dhib can have only one purpose, and that is to increase the villagers’ suffering so that they will give up and leave their homes, thus making it easier to expand settlements. Does Winston Peters believe that Israel has any respect for the Palestinian people? We ask Mr Peters to please explain whether he approves or disapproves of Israel’s present and past behaviour.

Sanctions

Security Council Resolution 2334 passed 14-0. Now clearly isolated, Israel’s response was far from promising. Israeli PM Netanyahu expressed fury over UNSC 2334, threatening that: If you continue to promote this resolution from our point of view it will be a declaration of war. It will rupture the relations and there will be consequences. Netanyahu believes he can afford to be scornful because UN Resolution 2334 has no sanctions with which to call Israel to account. The Israeli Government did believe it had the right to impose sanctions of a sort upon New Zealand though because, after relenting a little following the withdrawal of its ambassador, the Israeli Embassy said, until further notice no more sanctions would be imposed against New Zealand.

Sanctions apply pressure to countries that threaten peace, have harmful policies or don’t co-operate with international law.

MFAT also informs us that:

Sanctions are a common measure that the United Nations Security Council takes to enforce its decisions. As a UN member, New Zealand is bound to follow the Security Council’s decisions. The United Nations Act 1946 means our Government can respond quickly where necessary and impose or remove sanctions when the Security Council makes a decision. While we don’t have standalone legislation to impose our own sanctions independently of the Security Council, we can impose other sanctions such as travel bans on people entering our country.We ask Winston Peters, in view of Israel’s determination to defy the world community, is he willing to support moves to request the Security Council to impose sanctions upon Israel until it ceases to violate international humanitarian law? And would New Zealand First consider the imposition of travel bans upon Israeli individuals responsible for committing such crimes? If not, would he please explain why not.

Remember that MFAT also declares:

The protection of human rights is fundamental to achieving peace and stability, and New Zealand is known for its work to promote human rights internationally.

As the New Zealand First Leader will see, included among the sources for the information provided for these questions are The New York Times and Israeli newspapers Haaretz and The Jerusalem Post. This is reality, not opinion. Mr Peters, would you deny that requiring the Palestinian people to negotiate with Israel while, at the same time, they remain subject to belligerent, military Occupation, actually amounts to coercion? If you do not accept that observation we ask you to explain your reasoning in terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The passing of UNSC Resolution 2334 is a timely reminder that the Israeli Occupation of Palestine lies at the epicentre of the growing Middle East crisis. The continuing failure to bring Israel to account puts at risk the very survival of international law, peace and stability. Given New Zealand First’s declared position regarding UNSC Resolution 2334, are Labour and the Greens prepared to oppose any attempt by Winston Peters and New Zealand First to reverse New Zealand Government support for international humanitarian law and Resolution 2334?

Still feeling a warm glow of satisfaction over Labour Weekend following the ousting of former Health Minister Jonathan Coleman, whose inaction on mental health and suicide was legendary, I was brought down to earth sharply by a story published on Labour Day about Jonny – a young male Christchurch suicide victim.

Seeing a photo of Jonny playing a guitar and wearing a grey knitted beanie, reminded me strongly of our son Nicky – usually attired similarly and also a suicide victim, two and a half years ago.

The article brought home to me emphatically that just because we have a new Government, it doesn’t mean the awful scourge of suicide and the dramatic worsening in mental health statistics will somehow melt away because Jacinda, Winston and James have got some policies that sound like they might be an improvement.

Feeling like I was experiencing a deja vue episode, I read about the two-decades long struggle of Jonny and his supportive family to get decent treatment and support from Canterbury mental health authorities.

Psychiatric ‘professionals’ did not believe that Jonny was ‘hearing voices’ and kept releasing him after psychotic episodes without support plans in place, other than a ‘monthly injection’. The ‘professionals’ told Jonny’s family that he ‘was an adult’ and that his family ‘had no authority to speak for him’ – despite diagnosing him as schizophrenic, and placing under a compulsory Mental Health Act care order – exactly the same response our family received from the local branch of ‘professionals’ in the Waikato.

Jonny died alone less than two days after his last stay in Hillmorton Hospital, Canterbury DHB’s mental health inpatient centre.

Shortly after we published Jonny’s story on the ‘Nicky Autumn Stevens’ Facebook page, an Invercargill woman posted a lengthy comment outlining her similar, and ongoing, experiences with a family member and the mental health ‘professionals’ in her area.

The struggles and heartache of these Christchurch and Invercargill families, and our Waikato family – and thousands of other New Zealand families – will continue until there are dramatic and meaningful changes to our mental health system.

The incoming Government MUST URGENTLY

Set up the promised Inquiry into our mental health system within the next few months (and not the ‘review’ that some MPs mentioned just before the election);

Get trained counsellors into our high schools and lower schools by the start of next year, and – as soon as they can be trained – mental health practitioners in there as well;

Fund residential respite care centres in all regions, staffed by trained people who can support those leaving the acute mental health inpatient units, OR head them off needing to go in there;

Develop in every DHB area support programmes for mental health patients that do not rely solely on drug regimes, and provide ‘wrap-around’ services including accommodation and employment;

Require mental health practitioners to consult, and work with families of mental health patients to look at better ways of harnessing family support for their loved ones.

Following the Inquiry – whose panel must include recovering patients and family/whanau membership – the Government should develop medium and long term plans to turn around New Zealand’s mental health services, and reduce the terrible suicide and mental health statistics this country is experiencing.

David Macpherson is TDB’s mental health blogger. He became involved in mental health rights after the mental health system allowed his son to die. He is now a Waikato DHB Member.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/10/24/david-macpherson-new-government-needs-new-action-on-mental-health-suicide/feed/10The new Labour-led government has agreed to hold a binding referendum on legalising cannabis by or at the next election in 2020.https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/10/22/the-new-labour-led-government-has-agreed-to-hold-a-binding-referendum-on-legalising-cannabis-by-or-at-the-next-election-in-2020/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/10/22/the-new-labour-led-government-has-agreed-to-hold-a-binding-referendum-on-legalising-cannabis-by-or-at-the-next-election-in-2020/#commentsSat, 21 Oct 2017 15:36:58 +0000https://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=93330

After years of denial and obfuscation by the National-led Government, this is a massive opportunity. The world is watching.

The referendum is part of the deal between Labour and the Green Party. An email to party members said:

Increase funding for alcohol and drug addiction services and ensure drug use is treated as a health issue, and have a referendum on legalising the personal use of cannabis at, or by, the 2020 general election.

The Green Party policy is to treat cannabis as a health issue not a crime, legalise personal use, home growing, medical cannabis, and move towards a regulated market like we see in many places overseas.

It seems Winston Peters allowed the Greens to have a cannabis win as part of their confidence and supply deal with Labour, as long as it was his policy (holding a referendum) and not theirs (legalising it now).

Ideally, we should just get on with legalising cannabis now. In the time taken to run this referendum and then pass any law change, around fifty thousand New Zealanders will be arrested for cannabis, at a cost of around $1.5 billion.

Still, this provides us with a path forward, with a government supporting rather than opposing the process.

Increasing funding for alcohol and drug addiction services is a huge win – although by how much remains to be seen. Perhaps they will shift funding from the bottomless pit of law enforcement and put resources where they will better help those with drug addiction.

That is certainly implied by the statement “ensure drug use is treated as a health issue”, ie, not a crime.

This points to changes that can be made without or in addition to legislative reform, such as increased use of police diversion, changing sentencing guidelines, allowing harm reduction utensils, or even a moratorium on arrests until the referendum.

The lack of reference to medical cannabis in the agreement is conspicuous but not at this stage any cause for concern – we assume it isn’t there because it is already Labour policy to legalise medical cannabis in the first 100 days of government (ie, Jan/Feb 2018).

While also not in the agreement, I think Green MP Julie Anne Genter’s medical cannabis bill is likely to be supported by all Labour MPs.

Here’s what you need to know about the cannabis referendum:

It will be binding. Unlike Citizen Initiated Referendums, which are non-binding and have largely been ignored, this referendum will be binding, as is the norm for government-led referendums such as the two for changing the flag and MMP initiated by the previous National-led government.

Don’t fuck it up. If we lose, there goes any chance of meaningful reform for several decades. That’s the rest of your life, fellow Gen X’ers through to baby boomers.

We need to win big . Although 50.1% is technically a win, for legitimacy and longevity we really need a comprehensive winning margin of something like 75%. At least.

It won’t necessarily be Green policy. It could already be decided, but that’s unlikely. What gets put forward might be quite different to what the Green Party policy currently says, depending on the process followed, and especially if the public have any input.

Words make a big difference. The deal reported in the media is a referendum on legalising personal use of cannabis. What will be the exact words? There is a lot of misunderstanding around what words like legalisation and decriminalisation mean, and we know from local polling and overseas campaigns that subtle changes in terminology can make big differences. For example, “make cannabis legal” gets more poll support than “legalise cannabis” even though they mean the same thing. And what does it actually mean in terms of a law change?Logically, if using cannabis is legal they would need to grow their own, or be given it or be able to purchase it.

Poll all the options, then poll them again. Base the preferred model on what people actually prefer. Use polling to learn what is important to people and what turns them off. Build that into the model, which can be unique for New Zealand while also taking good aspects from what has worked overseas.

Be bold, but don’t overreach. The successful approach used in the US is to go for the model that polls are showing has 65 per cent support, then plan to raise that ten points during the campaign. Anything with less support will face doubts around its legitimacy, and longevity of the policy will not be assured. Anything with much higher support may have been too timid a goal and may represent a missed opportunity for getting what could have been a truly transformational policy.

Support what is better, not perfect. Don’t oppose whatever model emerges simple because it’s not your favourite choice, or it has one feature you don’t like. This is complex and no option will be perfect, but almost anything will be better than what we have now.

It will still be a lot of work. We won’t need to collect 300,000 signatures just to ask the question. But we still have a lot of work ahead of us. We can’t just expect to win. We have to campaign hard, we need to shift and solidify public opinion, we need to anticipate and neutralise the negative campaigning that will come, we need probably five hundred people working on it for the year leading up, and we’ll need a significant amount of money to run any successful campaign. Then presuming we win the referendum, we’ll still need to work to get any law change through parliament.

This will take five to six years. Moving it forward to the census in a few months is not practical, and the census is not a secret ballot so it’s inappropriate for voting especially on matters of crime or morals. With so much misunderstanding and a lack of agreement around what the preferred model should be – even among cannabis law reform circles – it may require a multi-stage process similar to the flag referendum. This involved a period of public consultation followed by expert analysis and a recommended short list, followed by a first referendum of the top four or five contenders (which could be by post, or timed for the local body elections in 2019), and then a final proposal to take to the 2020 referendum. Then a Bill needs to be passed through parliament, including a select committee inquiry and further public submissions. This usually takes 18 months to two years. It is unlikely to be done under urgency as MPs will be wary of making mistakes like they did with the Psychoactive Substances Act. It may then need regulations promulgated to provide interpretation and fine detail. This process can itself take a further two years and require further rounds of public submissions and cabinet papers. Legal wheels turn very slowly!

We’re on the road to cannabis law reform.One step at a time, we will get there.

The new government got off to a pretty good start – indeed a few minutes before it was announced – when Winston Peters indicated that its mission is no less than to humanise capitalism in New Zealand. This reminds us that Winston Peters is by far the most qualified person in this government to be Minister of Finance, and that it’s Finance Ministers that make or break governments.

The ‘make’ scenario is an exciting one; a programme to move on from neoliberalism without waiting for a new ‘great depression’ to precipitate such progress. Forward-looking people have to get behind that ambition, and not to undermine it by bringing austerity politics or identity politics to the fore.

On the ‘break’ scenario, we need to note that voters desert composite governments’ support parties. So, if Labour proves to be a weak link in the new government, it’s likely that both New Zealand First and Green will be ejected from Parliament in 2020, leaving only Labour and National and Seymour in parliament after 2020. That would be a very sad outcome for a country that has proved it likes to have genuinely independent parties in the Parliamentary mix (though not necessarily ‘at the table’). While few people voted for the independent Māori Party, many people regretted its passing.

In the United Kingdom in 2015, an unpopular Conservative-LiberalDemocrat government was replaced by a Conservative (Tory) government with a Parliamentary majority. The LibDems were punished (and the Tories rewarded) for the failings of the Tories.

National, under its veneer of acceptance, is quite bitter. Bill English noted that ‘only MMP’ could deny a 44% party the right to rule. Well National got 44% in 1987 and in 1957, and they were not able to rule in those pre-MMP years. In 1946 they even lost with 48% of the vote (but possibly only because the Labour government had removed the country quota). Labour also missed out on a number of occasions with 44% or more of the vote. We should never allow ourselves to believe that 44% is a mandate to rule.

Chris Trotter has varied in his views, from seeing a Labour government today as being a forerunner to a great Labour government in 2020, to showing concern about Labour’s austerian instincts. He said, to have a ‘1938’, you must first have a ‘1935’. But the context of 2017 is quite different to that of 1935. 1935 was a post-slump election. 2017 may be a pre-slump election. Indeed Winston Peters has signalled as much.

The years we can fruitfully look back to are 1928 and 1929. 1928 was the first New Zealand election in which Labour became a party to Government. The story is not as well known as it should be.

Before going back to that story, we should note that in 1929 Labour governments were elected in the United Kingdom and in Australia. (We should also not that the Great Depression is conventionally dated as 1930-34, though its severity was different at different times in different countries.) Neither Labour government lasted full term; like the New Zealand government, both of these fractured in 1931. In both of these cases – but for different reasons – the weak link was the Minister of Finance. In the United Kingdom, Philip Snowden became the Roger Douglas of his time. In Australia, Ted Theodore was a radical populist, who ‘frightened the horses’ big-time. In Australia, after 18 months of Labour, former Labour MP Joseph Lyons (the Peter Dunne of his day) led a competent but uninspiring United Australia Party into power for the rest of that decade. Australia missed out on the reforms associated with Labour in New Zealand in 1938. In the United Kingdom, Labour Prime Minister Ramsay McDonald in 1931 led the new ‘National’ (ie united) government, this time with a moderate Tory (Neville Chamberlain) as Chancellor of the Exchequer.

In New Zealand before the 1928 election, Reform (led by Gordon Coates) was the governing conservative party and Liberal (renamed United) should have been the Opposition. But Liberal was falling apart, and Labour leader Harry Holland (a traditional socialist) was Leader of the Opposition. Liberal, led in 1925 by George Forbes, had been a lacklustre opponent to Reform and reform. Liberal ‘reinvented’ itself in 1927 by bringing back Joseph Ward (who had first been Finance Minister in 1893). New Zealand had had an early pre-depression depression in 1926 and 1927; voters were disillusioned with the Coates government.

Ward excited the electorate on the hustings in 1928, by promising a £70 million public works loan. (The story is that it was meant to be £7 million, but that Ward misread his speech notes. Thus Joseph Ward invented what the world now knows as Abenomics; governments must act as borrowers of last resort, and substantially so if necessary.) The hitherto moribund Liberal (United) party increased its vote from 21% to 30%. And, under ‘First Past the Post’, the seats rolled in. United (30% of the vote) got one more seat than Reform (36% of the vote). (In 1919, when the voter percentages were very similar, Reform had vastly more seats. FPP indeed was a lottery.) United ‘won’ the election, and formed a government with Labour support on confidence and supply. Actually, 1929 wasn’t a bad year for New Zealand; the pre-depression depression was over.

The United and Labour match had been under strain however; United was more conservative than it had been in its Liberal heyday. Ward – not in good health – resigned as Prime Minister in May 1930. The rest of that party were conservative nobodies. The United-Labour ‘coalition’ (small-c) died in 1931, having lasted more than two years. It was replaced in mid-1931 by a United-Reform arrangement, with recycled United leader Forbes assuming the Prime Ministership. Forbes contested three elections as party leader. His party came third in all three (1925, 1931 and 1935).

In the 1931 election, Labour got more votes than any of the other parties (34%). But United and Reform had made electoral accommodations for each other. They went to the people as a Coalition (big-C); thus, they won. Forbes, having been Prime Minister for six months, was ‘re-elected’ as such, despite his party coming third in both votes and seats. (In mid-1931, Forbes also inherited Ward’s second role, Minister of Finance. So, in New Zealand as in Australia and United Kingdom in 1931, a Finance Minister – this time an incompetent one – broke a Labour-participating Government.) Forbes would continue as Prime Minister until 1935, even postponing the 1934 election by a year, ostensibly on account of the economic ’emergency’.

Winston Peters cannot be compared to George Forbes. Rather, although Peters has never been Prime Minister, he is a similar political character to Joseph Ward. Indeed Peters is the same age in 2017 that Ward was in 1928. The newly formed government now, in 2017, gives similar hope to basically the same sections of people as the new 1928 government did. Let’s hope that the end story this time will be more positive. The good news is that Peters’ health is clearly much better than Ward’s was.

Progressive governments have to be progressive to survive. And they have to reach out to constituencies much wider than their voter base. Ward had that reach, to some extent. Michael Joseph Savage had it, much more so. Harry Holland, Labour’s leader in 1928 and 1931, did not.

Juan and Evita Peron, in Argentina, also had ambition and reach. Elsewhere I have called New Zealand’s new government the “Peronista” option. The Perons burned out in the early 1950s; more excess than success. Like Ward, they made a comeback (Juan and Isabella Peron in the 1970s). Like Ward. I guess all will not be lost if his first stint in real power comes to a sudden halt. (Ward was personally bankrupt in 1896, and, as a result, resigned as Finance Minister. He got back up.)

If things turn really pear-shape for Jacinda Ardern in 2020 (or sooner) she could always make a comeback in 2051 (or even 2066 if Generation-Y women really do have the projected life-expectancy that some of our demographers claim) after many years in the political wilderness. In 2051 she will be younger than Winston Peters is today.

IN ALL ECONOMIES, and in every political system, there are roped-off areas of shadow and hidden places swathed in deliberate darkness. In these light-starved locations all kinds of disreputable economic and political transactions take place.

If there’s one politician in New Zealand who is familiar, to the point of intimacy, with this unmapped and unacknowledged territory, it’s Winston Peters. The man who broke the Winebox Scandal; wheeled and dealed with the big fishing companies; wined and dined the princes of New Zealand’s bloodstock industry; and took private calls on secluded New Zealand beaches from the US Secretary of State; knows better than just about any other New Zealander how the business of this world gets done.

That Peters, with bitter personal experience of just how dark our politics can get, nevertheless persuaded NZ First to throw in its lot with Labour and the Greens, is astonishing. He must have known that the formation of a government unwilling to settle for “a modified status quo” but determined to usher in “real change”, would instantly mobilise all the initiators and beneficiaries of New Zealand’s neoliberal revolution against him.

Like Franklin Roosevelt before him, however, Peters appeared not to fear the enmity of the nation’s wealthiest and most powerful individuals and institutions, but to welcome it. Without the slightest hesitation, he lifted up the banner of resistance to the red-in-tooth-and-claw Capitalism that, since 1984, New Zealanders have grown to fear and detest:

“Far too many New Zealanders have come to view today’s capitalism, not as their friend, but as their foe. And they are not all wrong. That is why we believe that capitalism must regain its responsible – its human face. That perception has influenced our negotiations.”

Such an open declaration of war against the neoliberal establishment was bound to draw an equally belligerent response. And who better to lead the charge than one of the prime movers of the neoliberal revolution, Richard Prebble. Never one to mince words, Prebble began his opinion piece to the NZ Herald with the following, extraordinary, accusation:

“Let’s not beat about the bush: There has been a coup.

“The political scientists can tell us it’s legal but the fact remains – it is undemocratic. For the first time in our history who governs us is not the result of an election but the decision of one man.”

That there is not a word of truth in any of this (as Prebble, an experienced lawyer and politician must surely realise) matters much less than the deep emotional impression such an inflammatory charge is likely to make on all those New Zealanders bitterly disappointed to see the National Party denied the parliamentary majority it needed to remain in government.

What Prebble is setting up here is a politico-historical narrative alarmingly akin to the Dolchstosslegende – the “stab-in-the-back” legend concocted by far-right German nationalists to explain the Fatherland’s defeat in World War I. According to this “Big Lie”, the German army wasn’t defeated on the field of battle, but by the treachery of the “November Criminals” – Jews and Socialists – who signed, first, the armistice that ended the war, and then, the hated Treaty of Versailles, which imposed a Carthaginian peace on the German nation.

Prebble is nothing if not inventive – embellishing his delegitimising narrative with a vivid political metaphor drawn from Japanese history:

“New Zealand is now a Shogunate. In Japan the Emperor had the title and the Shogun had all the power.

“Jacinda has Premier House and Shogun Peters sets the policies.”

This is highly sophisticated political writing. Not only is Peters cast as the new government’s eminence grise, the power behind the throne, but the status of Jacinda Ardern, New Zealand’s new Prime Minister, is also reduced to that of a naïve puppet. It is “Shogun Peters” who gets to wield the real power.

As if Prebble’s historical musings weren’t insulting enough in themselves, they are heavy with an additional, if unspoken, menace. Those familiar with modern Japanese history know that in 1868 the Shogunate was overthrown by forces determined to restore the power of the Emperor by making him Japan’s ruler in fact as well as in name. In other words, although Peters is in no way guilty of staging a coup, Prebble, himself, is implying that should the new Labour-NZ First-Green Government be successful in installing an anti-neoliberal “shogunate”, a restorative coup-d’etat may be in order.

Prebble is quite explicit about how such coup might begin:

“I predict bureaucratic opposition to this government will be significant. It will start leaking from day one. Everyone knows this coalition of losers has no mandate to implement Winston Peters’ interventionist policies.”

None of this will come as any surprise to Peters. He has had to weather similar attacks many times before in his political career. To Jacinda Ardern and James Shaw, however, such reckless mendacity is likely to be received with a mixture of alarm and dismay. Both leaders are going to need Peters hard-won knowledge of how New Zealand’s “Deep State” operates if they are to mount an effective defence against the Neoliberal Establishment’s dark transactions.

And not only Peters’ protection will be needed. Every progressive New Zealander who understands the magnitude of the fight which Peters’, Ardern’s and Shaw’s decision to pursue “real change” has made inevitable, must be prepared to come to the aid of the three parties – Labour, NZ First and the Greens – which have committed themselves to fulfilling the hopes and dreams of the 50.4 percent of the New Zealand electorate who voted for them.

First I want to congratulate myself that my prediction two weeks ago that Winston Peters and NZ First would choose to do with Labour has proved correct.

Of course, when there are only two choices the chances are quite high of being correct.

However, it was a judgement, not a guess. I tried to put myself into the shoes of Winston Peters, the politician and party leader, and think like I thought he actually would – not as I wanted him to think.

I am glad I have been proved right.

In the short term at least there is more chance of squeezing some small concessions in some areas that will advance the position of the low paid workers that I represent.

In particular, we want to push the minimum wage up from just over half the average wage to two-thirds of the average wage which is about $20 an hour in today’s dollars. Winston has said he wants that number to be reached by the end of the first three-year term. Labour and the Green’s both also officially support the goal of two-thirds of the average wage although Labour had the escape clause of “if economic conditions permit”. There is a good chance we will be close to that number within three years.

The current level of the minimum wage is $15.75 an hour. To go up to $20 an hour in three years is an increase of $4.25 or $1.42 an hour each year. That is almost double the 75 cents an hour increase being promised by Labour in the first year. Let us hope a more ambitious goal becomes part of the deal that has been done with NZ First and the Greens.

The other changes I think the union movement should concentrate on are those that strengthen our ability to organise working people.

It was one of the mad failures of the nine-years of the last Labour-led government that union membership density as a percentage of the working class was lower at the end than the beginning. The changes to industrial and other laws were too inconsequential to allow unions to grow easily – especially in the private sector which covers fewer than 10% of the private sector workforce. The goal should be to double or treble that percentage.

To do that we need tools t allow us to do the job more effectively. Much of the current policy Labour has put forward in the industrial relations sphere is simply rolling back the negative changes made by National. This is welcome but insufficient. As I said no real progress was made under the old regime before those changes so more needs to be done.

I am not sure that the policy of Labour for new “Industry Standards” will do that. This may establish better minimum employment standards in certain industries but I want changes that help strengthen unions to do that job.

I have sixteen simple and practical actions based on Unite Union’s organising experience that could be done easily and quickly that would make our work a hell of a lot easier. They are “reasonable” in the sense that right-wingers would find it hard to argue against them. I know that with these changes unions could organise hundreds of thousands more workers into unions and they could use their collective power to significantly improve their lives.

Some small changes that we could use to rebuild working class power in Aotearoa/NZ

1) All employees should have a clear choice to join a collective agreement and the union when being employed by a company where a collective agreement exists. This needs to be a single form that all employees must complete that is an “either/or” option. If the employee elects to become a union member the employer must process the form as a membership application and deduct fees. The employer must also forward the employee’s contact details to the relevant union. Where there is no collective agreement employees should have the choice of applying to join a union that is responsible for that industry. Application forms should be forwarded to the appropriate union.

2) Promote Multi-Employer Collective Agreements (MECA). Where a union initiates for a MECA the employers must meet within two weeks and appoint a bargaining team and an advocate. The advocate and team must make themselves available to meet and bargain in good faith within 30 days. When there has been a failure to conclude a collective agreement where bargaining has become protracted or a breach of good faith has occurred the union party can ask to attend facilitation through the Authority. If an agreement still cannot be reached by the parties the union can request that the Authority member to make a determination on the issues in dispute to conclude the collective agreement.

3) Master Franchise holder shall be deemed to be the employer party for all employers that operate as sub-franchisees.

4) An employee has the right to take a personal grievance against a party who is not the direct employer which has caused unjustified disadvantage, discrimination, harassment, bullying and unjustified dismissal. For example, when a security guard loses their job because the company they have been assigned to objects to their continued presence on a site.

5) An IEA has a maximum term of 2 years and the employer must propose changes in advance and meet with each employee in good faith to discuss and give the employee the opportunity make proposals. If the matters are unresolved the employee can access mediation services to assist any unresolved issues. Alternatively, the employer may choose to put the employee on the same terms and conditions as the collective agreement without individual bargaining for the payment of an agreed fee to the union.

6) Unions have the right to communicate with their members including access to a union-controlled noticeboard in a workplace that has members of the relevant union.

7) At the union’s request, the employer must provide a list of all employees, their work locations and positions and facilitate the unmonitored access of those employees by union representatives, including adequate meeting facilities. If an employee does not wish to meet the union representative, the employee needs to communicate directly with the union representative. The initial meeting with employees who are not members of the union shall have a reasonable time, not less 15 minutes, to discuss membership of the union.

8) Union access to union members can be conducted individually or collectively. Collective discussions need be facilitated to allow members of the union to fully engage in the meeting. Wherever practical the union meeting can be in the workplace concerned.

9) All employers must allow deduction of union fees from pay. (At present there is an exemption where it is stipulated in an employment agreement that there is no deduction allowed. This is used by labour-hire companies.)

10) Regular patterns of work shall be deemed to be agreed hours of work unless there are genuine reasons based on reasonable grounds for the regular pattern of work to not to be recognised.

12) Part 6A (transfer of undertakings) rights provided under this section to be extended to all employees.

13) The pay and conditions of workers supplied by Labour-Hire companies shall not be less than that paid by the employer to which labour is being supplied.

14) All Labour Inspector powers and penalties should be available to workers/unions/at the ERA.

15) Stop migrant workers visas being tied to their jobs, or an amnesty to find another when exploited. Migrant worker employment agreements to be lodged with MBIE and all wages paid directly to a bank account.

16) There are also there issues of broader working class rights that could be done to bring this country into the 21st Century that would also be hard for right-wingers to argue against.

– Overtime rates of time and a half shall apply to all hours worked in excess of 8 hours a day or 40 in a week.

The most interesting aspect of Winston Peter’s announcement of a coalition deal with Labour was his acknowledgement that capitalism had become the enemy of so many people. He said he wants a government of change which, among other things, will do something real about poverty.

That’s very good news for the new government because while Jacinda Ardern has talked the talk on poverty and inequality she didn’t bring any new policies into the election campaign which would have made a significant difference. In fact she backed down on even considering a capital gains tax for at least another three years. Her “captain’s call” was to cut the opportunity for a fairer tax system which would take the heavy tax burden from the poor and shift it to the feckless rich who don’t pay tax.

She compounded the idea she didn’t really stand for change by surrounding herself with the likes of Michael Cullen and Annette King during the campaign and in coalition negotiations.

These are the people who, despite nine years of strong economic growth and big budget surpluses, left 175,000 children in poverty when Labour lost the 2008 election.

In his (probably) last term as an MP. Winston Peters has returned to his economic roots. He came into parliament as a young MP when Muldoon was at the height of his powers. He was Muldoon’s protégé. Muldoon, despite the fact half the country hated him with a deep passion, fended off the new right within National and refused to implement economic policies he knew would increase poverty and inequality.

Labour unfortunately was captured by the new right in 1984 and the rest is a history which continues to repeat within the party and its policies.

It seems to me Winston Peters could well be the driver of policies to reduce poverty and inequality. Muldoon – despite his conservative, anti-women and anti-union attitudes – would have approved.

Peters has called it: NZ First will go into coalition with Labour-Greens.

In reality, it was the only decision he could possibly make.

Firstly, National has a scary reputation for devouring it’s coalition partners:

Peter Dunne – falling electoral support at each election until he faced a potentially humiliating defeat by Labour’s Greg O’Connor. Instead, he chose to resign and leave Parliament voluntarily rather than being turfed out by the voters of Ōhāriu.

ACT/David Seymour – a shadow of it’s hey-day in 2002, when it had nine MPs, it is currently hooked up to perpetual political life-support. Seymour is tolerated by the Nats as a cute mascot rather than as a useful partner. No one has the heart to flick the “off” switch to end Seymour’s tenacious grip on parliamentary life.

The Maori Party – it’s close alliance with successive National governments took it from five seats in 2008 to losing everything at this election. Coalition with the Tories was the proverbial “kiss of death” for the Maori Party.

NZ First has dodged that party-killing-bullet by declining to join with the National ‘Black Widow’ Party.

Secondly, a National-NZ First Coalition would have meant taking on the baggage of failed policies; knee-jerk rush from crisis-to-crisis, and bad headlines from the last nine years of mis-management from the Key-English Administration;

increasingly polluted waterways

families living in cars

under-funded health system

stretched mental health services

increasingly unaffordable housing

rising greenhouse gas emissions

low wages

economic growth predicated on housing speculation and immigration

etc, etc, etc.

A coalition with National would have meant taking ownership of nine years of worsening statistics and bleak media headlines.

How would that benefit NZ First? The answer is self-evident.

National has had nine years to address the critical problems confronting us as a nation. The sight of families with children living in cars or rivers that are toxic with urban and rural pollution and unfit to swim in is not the New Zealand we wanted to leave future generations. Yet that is precisely the legacy bequeathed by the Nats and their neo-liberal, market-driven ideology. That would have been the poisoned chalice from which Peters would have supped from.

As Shakespeare might have said, “fuck that shit!”

A coalition with Labour and the Greens offers a fresh start. It puts NZ First into a brand new government, with a fresh leadership, new ideas, and none of the baggage offered by a tired government that had simply run out of ideas.

It also accords Winston Peters with the legacy he sought: the Kingmaker who put the sword to thirtythree years of the neo-liberal experiment.

The nightmare of Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson is over. Neo-liberalism is dead.

Thank you, Winston Peters.

And as I promised: I offer my apologies for doubting that you would make the right decision. This is one of those occasions where I am happy to have been proven 100% wrong.

WHAT DOES NZ FIRST WANT? More than anything else, NZ First and its leader, Winston Peters, would like to reconstruct the New Zealand economy of the 1950s and 60s. Given that these were years of extraordinary economic and social progress, during which more and more New Zealanders were lifted into relative affluence, and the country’s infrastructure (especially its hydro-electric energy generation capacity) expanded dramatically, NZ First’s desire to replicate this success is commendable. But, is it possible? In a world so very different from the one that emerged from World War II, is it reasonable to suppose that the remedies of ‘Then’ are applicable – or even available – ‘Now’?

At the end of World War II the United States of America stood completely unchallenged: militarily, economically and culturally it was without peer. The American mainland remained untouched by the fascist enemy; its factories were geared to levels of production without parallel in human history; and the sophistication of its science, which had bequeathed to the world both cheap antibiotics and the atomic bomb, promised a future of unbounded promise – and unprecedented peril.

Accounting for half the world’s production and nearly two-thirds of its wealth, the United States nevertheless faced a problem. If the rest of humanity was not to slide into the most wretched poverty and, once again, fall prey to the purveyors of extreme political ideologies, then it would have to be given the wherewithal to lift itself up into prosperity. Except that, when the Americans spoke of humanity, they were not really thinking of the human-beings who lived in the Soviet Union, or civil-war-ravaged China, or in the vast continent of Africa. It was in the rehabilitation of the peoples of Europe, South America and Australasia that the USA was most interested.

New Zealand, also materially unscathed by the ravages of war, was ideally positioned to benefit from the Americans’ self-interested altruism. The United Kingdom constituted an insatiable market for this country’s agricultural products, and the United States made sure its enfeebled British ally received sufficient cash to go on buying (among other things) all the butter, cheese, lamb and wool New Zealand could send it. It was an arrangement which very quickly transformed New Zealand into one of the wealthiest nations on earth.

Sixty-five years on from the fat 1950s, however, the world is a very different place. Europe and Japan rebuilt themselves, and the USA’s effortless hegemony became harder and harder to sustain. In lifting its own people, and much of the rest of the world, out of poverty, American capitalism had facilitated the rise of powerful working-classes in all the major Western nation-states. They had created increasingly self-conscious and militant labour movements which, if not tamed would soon be in a position to transition their societies out of capitalism and into a new, post-capitalist, form of economic and social organisation.

The world currently inhabited by New Zealanders reflects the self-defensive policies set in motion by the ruling classes of the leading capitalist nations in the mid-to-late 1970s – the period of Capitalism’s maximum danger. Perhaps the most important of these policies involved the integration of the populations of the Soviet Union and China into what was intended to become, as soon as they were brought safely under its influence, a truly global capitalist economy. Against such a massive expansion in the supply of cheap labour, the working-classes of the West stood no chance. The golden age of post-war social-democracy – the age which Winston Peters and NZ First would so like to re-create – was at an end.

Or was it? The development by the Chinese Communist Party of “Socialism – with Chinese [i.e. capitalist] characteristics”, following the death of Mao Zedong, not only assisted China’s integration into the global capitalist economy, but unleashed pent-up forces of commercial dynamism which, in the space of just 40 years, transformed China into an economic behemoth. It is now China which offers New Zealand an insatiable market for its agricultural products. Indeed, so constant is the demand for our exports that the same level of state-sponsored economic and social uplift that characterised New Zealand in the 1950s and 60s has, once again, become a possibility. But only under Chinese hegemony.

What Winston Peters and his party now have to decide is whether becoming an economic, political and cultural colony of the People’s Republic of China is what they had in mind when they proclaimed their goal of putting New Zealand first.

[Author’s Note: this piece was originally prepared for an international audience; and is presented unaltered from its original form]

Late last month, New Zealanders went to the polls for our most recent General Election. The final results have just a few days ago been announced, and they place the nationalist New Zealand First party of Winston Peters in arguably the most powerful position – able to demand their price from either of the other ‘big two’ parties in exchange for their support in allowing a Government to be formed.

But what does this mean for Russia? And why should a mighty, slowly resurrecting Great Power be interested in the humdrum, run-of-the-mill conclusion to our most recent democratic process.

Well, for a start, New Zealand First has a solid record in recent years of advocating for closer economic links between our country and Russia. This may not sound like much given our relative size – but as pretty much the world’s leading producer of dairy products, and a foremost producer of other agricultural foodstuffs like beef, New Zealand is in a prime position to help fill the void left by the trade sanctions levied on Russia in recent years by Western governments.

Unfortunately, the previous [and now possibly outgoing, pending the result of coalition talks] National-led Government saw things differently; and was slavish in its adherence to both European Union embargos (despite not being anywhere near Europe either geographically or in terms of interests), as well as its preference for pursuing ‘white elephant’ economic engagement with the Americans and their cronies via mechanisms such as the TPPA rather than looking seriously at trade deals with Russia.

There is thus a strong potential that New Zealand First holding many if not all of the cards in this week’s Coalition negotiations to form our next Government might lead to a better and more pro-Russia fronting from New Zealand going forward; presuming that NZ First Leader Winston Peters continues to press these issues and others like them that he has rigorously campaigned on for the past few years.

Given Russia’s freshly renewed rise on the international stage, as well as her strong position as both a global ‘good citizen’ [as seen in, for instance, Syria], along with the strong potential for mutually beneficial economic links between our two countries – this is surely a development which ought be welcomed by all sides.

The days of the mutually-reinforcing Anglo-American dominance of New Zealand’s geopolitical positioning and economic destiny are coming to a close.

We can but hope that as applies trade and foreign policy, New Zealand’s incoming next Government adapts accordingly and in-line with New Zealand First’s previously announced thinking in this area.

WHO MAKES “MEN”? With the behaviour of movie magnate, Harvey Weinstein, dominating the headlines, the nature and origins of masculinity have become a hot topic. At issue is whether all expressions of masculinity are to a greater-or-lesser extent “toxic” – or only some? And, whether the ultimate liberation of womankind is contingent upon the unequivocal elimination of the culturally constructed beings we call “men”?

In many ways the battle for control over the construction and meaning of gender is the greatest revolutionary struggle of them all. Indeed, it is possible to argue that until this critical issue has been resolved, all of those historical upheavals to which the term “revolution” has been applied have been mischaracterised.

The key question to ask in relation to these historic transitions is whether or not, after the power relationship between master and slave, lord and serf, capitalist and proletarian shifted, the relationship between men and women; between the masculine realm and the feminine realm; was similarly changed? Or, was it still very much a matter of, in Leonard Cohen’s words, “that homicidal bitchin’ that goes down in every kitchen to determine who will serve and who will eat.”? After the “revolution”, did masculinity (like “whiteness”) continue to confer a huge societal advantage upon all who fell within its definitional boundaries – regardless of their personal beliefs and/or inclinations?

But perhaps “revolution” is the wrong word to describe the longed-for dethronement of masculinity? Perhaps the near universal institution of patriarchy (rule by the fathers) is actually the product of the first great social revolution in human history. Perhaps what feminist women are seeking to achieve isn’t a revolution – but a restoration?

And here we must step out of the hard-copy world of recorded history and enter into the much less solid realm of pre-history and mythology. Because it is here, in the indistinct depths of time, that the first and most profound transition in human affairs; the overthrow of the servants of the Earth Mother, by the worshippers of the Sky Father; took place. At the heart of this masculinist revolt lay a deep-seated fear and resentment of all things female – and a burning desire to master them.

Rule by the mothers – Matriarchy – drew its justification from the self-evident need for all living things to submit to the implacable statutes of Mother Earth. Hers was the endless cycle of birth, death and re-birth from which no living creature escaped. And the vessels within which all living things are nurtured, and out of which all new life emerges into the world, are female. Such was the deep magic of generation and fruition which flowed from the timeless creator of all things: The Goddess.

But the sons of the Goddess were lesser beings than their sisters. Helpmeets and protectors, certainly; seed carriers also; but from the deep magic of the mothers they were perforce excluded. Men were the takers of life: the killers of beasts and other men – their brothers. This, too, was a dark and powerful magic, but dangerous and destructive of the settled order. It was a force which the Mothers were careful to keep in check.

It is easy to guess where this story is going.

Men looked skyward, away from the Earth. They observed the gathering darkness in the heavens and heard the deep rumble of the sky’s anger. They witnessed the brilliant spears of light that stabbed the Earth, their mother. In awe they watched her burn, powerless beneath the thrusts of a deity who owed nothing to the slow cycles of growth and decay. Here was a magic to surpass the impenetrable secrets of femininity. Here, in light and fire, they found the power of beginnings: the shock and disruption of all that was new. Not the circles of the Earth Mother, but the straight lines of the Sky Father – the Maker of “Men”.

Masculinity is the world’s disease, and civilisation is its symptom. Patriarchy is the product of the first, and the only true, revolution in human history – and endures as its most malignant legacy.

It was not the decision to decertify the Iran’s nuclear deal that has left most ordinary Iranians incensed but the US President’s misnaming of the Persian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf.

Many Iranians have taken to the social media to express their rage and disappointment at the President’s failure to refer to the Persian Gulf by its proper name.

Some, including the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, blamed the President’s poor understanding of history and geography while others thought it as a deliberate attempt to taunt Iran and please her nemesis in the region: the Saudis.

Historically and internationally, the body of water which is mostly bordered by Iran in the north and by the Saudi Arabia in the south, has been referred to as the Persian Gulf- but with the emergence of Arab nationalism since the 60s, there has been an attempt, on behalf of Arab nations bordering the Persian Gulf, to refer to it as the Arabian Gulf.

With the renaming of Persia to Iran in 1935, by former Shah of Iran’s father Reza Shah, the Persian Gulf remains the only internationally recognized geographical location of significance that bears the name Persia.

The insistence on the name Persian Gulf harks back to Iranians’ yearning for their country’s glorious past as the name has a historic link to the Persian Empire, a period in history which remains as an immense source of confidence and pride to most Iranians.

This is why, in 1971, the former Shah of Iran decided to hold a grand celebration to mark the 2500th anniversary of Persian Empire and to showcase Iran’s old civilization and history to the world.

Ironically, the decadent nature of the festivities contributed to the downfall of the Shah and the monarchial system in Iran.

The name Persia also has an important association to Iran’s pre-Islamic history when the native religion of Persians was Zoroastrianism, not Islam.

The decline of Zoroastrianism in Iran came after the 7th Century Arab Conquest of Persia and coincided with significant decline in political, economic, social and military power of the country.

Many Iranians believe the 1979 triumph of the Islamic Republic of Iran has produced the same levels of political, social and economic decline as the Muslim conquest of Persia did back in the 7th Century.

For this reason, there is almost an anti-Islamic and anti-regime connotation to the word Persia that many Iranians would like to uphold as a reminder of their glorious pre-Islamic past and a beacon of hope for the future.

If President Trump was more interested in history and less concerned in bending backwards for deep-pocketed Saudis, maybe he would have stuck with the correct name and called it the Persian Gulf- but that clearly would be asking too much from a delusional megalomaniac.

On the 10th anniversary of the Urewera raids we should recount the lessons – and we should remember.

Breathless police and media commentary about a cocktail of napalm bombs, terrorist cells, guns, ammunition, Maori extremists, guerrilla warfare, assassination threats against politicians, greeted the public on the 15th October 2007. You name it – the police claimed it and the media hyped it.

From the 17 arrests and the dozens searched and detained – illegally as it turned out – just four people were charged with illegal possession of firearms – two were jailed and two given home detention.

The progressive left was quick to hit back against the hysterical police narrative and bring some semblance of sanity and common sense to the public debate. This was highly successful and within 24 hours some elements of the media and much of the public were expressing scepticism concerning the police claims.

We worked with Tuhoe activists to organise marches and public demonstrations highlighting the appalling police behaviour and calling for a reigning in of the surveillance state.

Subsequent developments showed we were right – the police had overreacted and dramatically overreached. They should have taken concerns about military style camps in the Urewera seriously and sent in a Maori liaison officer to find out what was happening and why.

Instead, the police deliberately side-lined their community officers in favour of a dramatic $8 million surveillance operation which they hoped would bring public justification for the massive increase in police (and SIS) powers and resources in the wake of the US September 11 attacks. New Zealand had become a surveillance state and these raids would show that while we didn’t have Islamic extremists, we had our own home-grown terrorists.

A lot of that initial response from the left was instinctive. We knew most of the people the police were claiming as terrorists and knew this was at least a gross over-reaction to whatever had been going on.

The most important lesson from the Urewera raids is to always be sceptical of state agencies who often have their own non-public-interest justifications for what they do.

On the other side I don’t think it’s too cynical to say the main lesson the police will have learnt is NOT that they got it wrong and couldn’t tell the difference between a bullshit conversation in a car and a credible terrorist threat but that it was a failure of PR to prepare carefully enough.

It’s worth remembering too the long list of legislation passed by successive Labour and National governments to extend the surveillance state on the pretext of keeping us safe. Instead it has turned this country into a surveillance state where civil liberties and the right to privacy take second place to the powers of Big Brother to intrude into our lives.

War is great for business. About $1.68 trillion worth of business globally as of 2015. Defence market reports say global tension and conflict will drive ongoing defence spending, “leading to global market opportunities for exporters”. Even here in NZ, our comparatively small defence budget is increasing, and NZ based military technology manufacturers are poised to capitalise on market opportunities generated by instability, superpower aggression and conflict around the world.

Already the NZ defence industry generates about $60million per annum, and employs about 2500 people. The defence force itself has the massive budget of $3,261 million for the 2017/18 year with an almost $100 million funding boost in this year’s budget, and an additional $406million over four years for increased operational expenses, and $576million for capital projects. That’s a lot of money in both public and private sector involvement in the potential creation and dissemination of instruments of death.

Business opportunities provided by a thriving arms market are promoted by the NZ Defence Industry Forum which held its annual conference in Wellington this week. The Defence Industry Forum (NZDIA) facilitates discussions between defence suppliers and defence agency buyers, from here and around the world. The NZDIA brief is to “identify niche markets worldwide and optimise foreign exchange returns on assets of its members, …with a focus on gaining and maximising onshore and offshore defence contracts”. According to one of the referees on their website, ‘they’re one of the most effective industry forums in New Zealand”, reflected in the Government’s budget increases perhaps. But beyond the opportunities of expanding domestic military expenditure, New Zealand companies are benefitting from the global death trade. With the military as agents of state sanctioned violence, companies supporting the arms trade here and abroad, are war profiteers, complicit in a culture of violence and oppression.

And it seems that industry is booming. The Defence Industry Association annual conference was attended by around 500 delegates and 150 organisations. The conference is usually sponsored at least in part, by one of the world’s largest (worst?) arms manufacturers, Lockheed Martin. Representatives of other major weapons companies also attend. But smaller domestic companies who manufacture mortar firing devices, combat training systems, missile guidance technology, weapons and ammunition, transport, procurement and logistics systems, cyber security and military electronics are all there. We’ve got ‘arms dealers on our doorstep’. It’s an opportunity for these industries to buy, sell and lobby for ‘more weapons of war’. War in itself helps their trade.

Intolerant conservatives in NZ were appalled at the behaviour of protestors who sought to blockade, interrupt and disrupt the Defence Industry conference. In online comments, protestors were called ‘street thugs’, ‘rent a mob’, ‘the dregs of society’. They should “get a job, get a life, and if they want change, they should get elected”. Ironically Chloe Swarbrick, newly elected Green MP attended the conference blockade, as did the recently awarded Nobel Peace Prize winner Thomas Nash, recognised for his opposition to nuclear weapons. And many of the protestors were working people who considered the issue of NZ’s involvement in the death trade sufficiently morally important that they used annual leave so they could attend.

Among the protestors was ‘Uncle Scam’ dressed in stars and stripes, wearing a ‘wanted for war crimes’ sign, and carrying another asking conference attendees ‘is it ok when it’s not your family?’ with pictures of falling bombs. There were clowns, men, women and children, people carrying flowers, and a celebratory ‘give peace a dance’ event.

Peaceful protestors blockading the route for delegates to the conference, were manhandled, apparently brutalised, and some people were insulted and injured by the police. Protestors say the police used inappropriate force, which the police deny, saying ‘they were extremely disappointed with the behaviour of protestors”, but protestors said if they’d acted the way the police did, they would have been arrested. The police have the long arm and the upper hand of the law.

Protestors questioned why the police were enforcing security at an industry event, which should be paying for its own security, and the cops were acting as ‘lap dogs to big business’. It’s a bizarre paradox; Wars have been fought to ‘preserve democratic freedoms’ which are suppressed by the police because those same freedoms are used to question the trades of war.

Some of the ‘appalling behaviour’ exhibited by protestors included spitting on conference delegates, and one online contributor suggested even ‘rebelling against the police is despicable behaviour’. It’s a sick world where war mongers and military equipment mercenaries are protected by the state, and those who bear witness and raise awareness of militarism, where the purpose is to kill, are condemned. Non-violent direct action is seen through this lens as a greater crime than direct and violent action through organised military means. In this context, even violent action would be appropriate to stop the dogs of war, but society condemns those who stand for peace, not force, as well as those who would use force to stop it.

Once again the power of the dollar trumps moral questions of the trade in murderous weapons. Turning a blind eye to the proliferation of the tools of war, and their production here in New Zealand, is the same as the American blind spot to gun related harm, but on bigger scale. Edmund Burke said, ‘all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing’. And Malcolm X said, ‘if you’re not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” This week, righteous and honourable men and women spoke truth to power, and stood against evil that’s institutionalised in the state, and such a cultural norm that the non-violent protestors were condemned more than the purveyors of war.

EVEN IF WINSTON VEERS LEFT, the progressive New Zealand community still has a problem. Their new political representatives: the people upon whom so many progressive voters have pinned their hopes for meaningful change; will soon discover that the speed at which they, themselves, are being transformed is far outstripping any changes in the wider world. Indeed, it will not be long before their elevated status leads them to begin questioning the wisdom of the many economic and social changes they are expected to make.

Even the lowliest Labour or Green backbench MP, on a salary of at least $160,000, now finds themselves among the top 5 percent of income-earners. It will require considerable willpower on their part to resist the lifestyle choices made possible by such a generous income. An even greater effort will be needed to prevent the blandishments of their fellow movers-and-shakers (who will be drawn to them like bees to honey) from turning their heads. As fully-paid-up members of the New Zealand political class, they will be expected to play by its rules. The most important of these: “Insiders do not talk to Outsiders!”, is intended to render meaningful economic and social change all-but-impossible.

It will only take a few weeks for these MPs to pass over from the world inhabited by their friends and constituents, into the “Wellington Bubble”. Once inside, they will find it very difficult to leave. Only when they are inside the bubble will the true character of events be revealed to them – nothing of which may be communicated to those living outside. They will soon come to accept that the power to solve problems is only ever made available to those who understand the importance of working inside the bubble. Trying to effect change from the outside will only bring home to them how powerless outsiders truly are.

These lessons will force our newly-minted progressive MPs to make some hard choices among their friends and comrades. They will have to decide who has what it takes to become an Insider, and who will forever be counted among the outsiders.

Once inducted into the rules of “Insiderdom’, these people will become the MP’s most trusted advisers and helpers. Regardless of what office they hold (if any) within the wider party, these will be the ones who, working alongside the MP, are permitted to wield the real power. Perhaps their most important role is to supply outsiders with explanations and excuses for why so many of the party’s promises for real and meaningful change cannot – at this time – be fulfilled.

As a means of protecting the world of the Insiders, this current arrangement is vastly more sophisticated than those of the past. Summer warmth is always more likely to encourage a relaxation of vigilance than the icy blasts of winter.

When the Labour Party was in its infancy, back in the 1920s and 30s, the salary paid to ordinary MPs was derisory – less than the wage of a skilled tradesman. Traditionally, the role of legislator was deemed one for which only “gentlemen” were socially, professionally and financially equipped. The rough-hewn working-men and women who entered the hallowed halls of Parliament were, therefore, met by a veritable force-field of class prejudice and scorn. Labour was the party of Outsiders – and the Insiders weren’t the least bit shy about letting Labour’s MPs know it.

While this state of affairs undoubtedly gave the enemies of progressivism considerable satisfaction, it was, politically-speaking, dangerously counter-productive. In terms of their lifestyle, working-class Labour MPs remained largely indistinguishable from their constituents. The complex apparatus erected around present-day electorate MPs by Parliamentary Services, was non-existent. When people came to a Labour MP seeking assistance, they were met more often than not by their spouse, who acted as the MP’s unpaid electorate secretary. There are countless stories about Labour MPs – especially during the Great Depression – reaching into their own, near-empty, pockets to prevent their constituents from going hungry. These were gestures that bred a party loyalty strong enough to bridge generations of voters. As Outsiders living among outsiders, the fires of progressive fervour that distinguished Labour’s team of parliamentarians were never in any danger of going out. No bubbles of wealth and privilege surrounded them to shut out the cries of the angry poor who were Labour’s nation.

In the words of Aesop’s fable – The House Dog And The Wolf

THE MOON WAS SHINING very bright one night when a lean, half-starved wolf, whose ribs were almost sticking through his skin, chanced to meet a plump, well-fed house dog. After the first compliments had been passed between them, the wolf inquired:

“How is it cousin dog, that you look so sleek and contented? Try as I may I can barely find enough food to keep me from starvation.”

“Alas, cousin wolf,” said the house dog, “you lead too irregular a life. Why do you not work steadily as I do?”

“I would gladly work steadily if I could only get a place,” said the wolf.

“That’s easy,” replied the dog. “Come with me to my master’s house and help me keep the thieves away at night.”

“Gladly,” said the wolf, “for as I am living in the woods I am having a sorry time of it. There is nothing like having a roof over one’s head and a bellyful of victuals always at hand.”

“Follow me,” said the dog.

While they were trotting along together the wolf spied a mark on the dog’s neck. Out of curiosity he could not forbear asking what had caused it.

“Chain!” cried the wolf in surprise. “You don’t mean to tell me that you are not free to rove where you please?”

“Why, not exactly,” said the dog, somewhat shamefacedly. “You see, my master thinks I am a bit fierce, and ties me up in the daytime. But he lets me run free at night. It really is very convenient for everybody. I get plenty of sleep during the day so that I can watch better at night. I really am a great favourite at the house. The master feeds me off his own plate, and the servants are continually offering me handouts from the kitchen. But wait, where are you going?”

As the wolf started back towards the forest he said:

“Good night to you, my poor friend, you are welcome to your dainties – and your chains. As for me, I prefer lean freedom to fat slavery.”

Kiwi workers are being killed at the rate of one a week and on average someone is seriously injured every day.

These grim statistics are contained in a report by the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety.

The numbers reveal that over 51 Kiwis a year are killed at work. In addition, 346 people were seriously injured so that they needed hospitalisation and had a “high threat to life”. These are people who have been severely hurt, had severed limbs, brain damage, and could well continue to suffer chronic pain.

So far this year 38 Kiwis have been killed. The number killed and injured has stayed at a steady high despite changes to the health and safety laws in 2013 and 2015.

Nor do these figures include deaths or serious illnesses from occupational diseases, which are estimated to kill between 500 and 800 people each year.

Council of Trade Unions president Richard Wagstaff says that “In New Zealand we still have a 75 percent higher fatality rate than the UK. We need better leadership on prioritising keepimg Kiwis safe at work.”

The taskforce has proposed a target of only a 25% reduction in deaths and injuries. “Why are we not more ambitious?” asked Richard Wagstaff, “why are we not aiming higher?”

John Alexander (his real name, but not his full name) – commonly known as ‘Jack’ – was 25 when World War 1 broke out. Jack was no war hero; nor was he an anti-war hero. No, Jack might best be described an anti-war anti-hero.

Born as the ninth and youngest child of a South Canterbury family (his father was a blacksmith), he was raised with his parents and older siblings in Apiti, Manawatū. His father died when he was 12; his mother when he was 13. Raised for a while after that by older siblings – most likely in large part by his big sister who in 1890 had named her short-lived ‘illegitimate’ son John Alexander. By 1911 Jack drifted to the province of his birth, where he worked, for at least some of the time, as a butcher. But he appears to have led a somewhat dissolute life; an over-aged ‘larrikin’, as they might have said then.

Jack did not volunteer for war service in the 1914 intake, but did later in May 1915. On enlistment he gave, as his next of kin, a woman ‘friend’ who either did not exist or who had been working under a faux name. Jack’s last address was a boarding house in Manchester Street, Christchurch; an address in the red-light district, well beyond commuting distance from his most recent employer. While he was clearly detached from his siblings, he must have been hoping for an opportunity to make good in their eyes; like the ‘prodigal son’. As a single unemployed butcher, he was almost certainly targeted in Christchurch by the women of the White-Feather League (and see Mentality of the General Population).

Jack enlisted more to give some direction to his life, and to do a bit of OE (overseas experience); not at all out of any propensity to make sacrifices for King and country. He joined the New Zealand Rifle Brigade.

Jack sailed in the second great fleet of World War 1, in October 1915. The soldiers arrived in Suez in November, and, a month later, went onto Alexandria. Jack was in trouble almost immediately. He lost pay on several occasions for such things as ‘abuse and obscene language to an NCO’ and ‘refusing to obey an order’, and was in detention for 14 days for absence without leave. Jack reached France in April 1916. The pattern of absences and losing pay continued.

Jack was first hospitalised with gonorrhoea on the eve of New Zealand’s entry into the Battle of the Somme. This was the first major battle that New Zealanders participated in, after Gallipoli. The Somme was Jack’s first major absence with leave. The Somme battles had begun in early July 1916, and it was predictable to astute soldiers when New Zealand might join in. Jack was admitted to hospital in Rouen a week before the New Zealand soldiers attacked from their trenches on the Somme.

In France, soldiers of all nationalities, when they were not fighting, were encouraged to use official brothels, where the chances of catching gonorrhoea (and worse) from the sex-workers was minimised. Soldiers were far from the only victims of the war. Some soldiers preferred the unofficial brothels. The free-market price for prostitutes with gonorrhoea may actually have been higher than for officially clean sex-workers. (See Sex and the Somme: The officially sanctioned brothels on the front line laid bare for the first time, Daily Mail, 29 Oct 2011). Jack was no naïve teen soldier. He had had plenty of experience of irresolute living; whether he had experienced ‘venereal disease’ in New Zealand or not, he will certainly have known people who did, how the diseases were treated, and how they resolved.

Jack did not want to die for the empire; he didn’t care about the empire. Soldiers might suffer much worse than from gonorrhoea.

In 1916 and early 1917, Jack had happily worked with the tunnelling, railway construction and cable burying crews. In May 1917, however, Jack lost 4 days’ pay for “absenting himself from fatigue party”. In June he saw his first and only military action. He was wounded at Messines, on the second day of the four-day battle. Messines (near Passchendaele, in Belgium) was a prelude to Passchendaele, not really remembered, possibly because it was actually a ‘victory’ for the New Zealand troops, albeit a costly and short-lived victory. We – like many others – most commemorate our military debacles. We have plenty of these.

In September 1917, Jack took leave, after discharge from hospital. He overstayed his leave, had his pay docked, but appears to have been fit in the weeks just before the Passchendaele battles. But he managed to stay in England (eventually returning to Codford, the venereal hospital); he did not rejoin his brigade Belgium. Jack managed to stay in England until April 1918 when he briefly returned to France.

Jack made good use of his time in England; he stayed in London whenever he could, and sometimes when he couldn’t. He needed to establish a war legacy. And, by 1918, was ready to settle down; to marry and contemplate having a family. In 1918 Jack met his future wife in London. Her fiancé had been killed in Greece that year; she reacted to that news by leaving home, and taking work as a barmaid in London.

Jack’s son believed his father had served, and been wounded, at Passchendaele. And Jack had an uncle called William Robertson. A different William Robertson was Chief of the Imperial General Staff – the professional head of the British Army – from 1916 to 1918. Jack’s son believed throughout his life that this William Robertson was his great uncle. Jack was very willing to bend the truth to breaking point in order to create a backstory that would impress both the woman he was courting, and his siblings (and later his children) back in New Zealand.

Jack married in June 1919, and embarked for New Zealand the following month. By then his next of kin information had been revised; now his brother and big sister, both possessing prime dairy farmland in Taranaki. To his siblings, the wayward youth had grown up. Jack raised a family, and made a success of life, as a dairy farmer. Jack had had a good war; and, unlike most of those who had actually fought in Flanders, Jack did talk about his Passchendaele experience.

Many moons ago – back when the notion of replacing Andrew Little with Jacinda Ardern was the sort of pie-in-the-sky idea dismissed by almost all serious commentators as almost assuredly fatal to both her party and her person, rather than some form of titanic/cthonic masterstroke capable of apparently singlehandedly reshaping the political landscape upon a whim – I sat down to pen a piece entitled “The Golden Path”.

The focus of this article was to be what I, and a number of others inside NZF, viewed as the ‘best’ course of action for the Party if we genuinely wished to survive the 2017 and 2020 General Elections and make it on to that mythical and much-hypothesized Life After Winston … without going the way of pretty much every other ‘smaller’ party over the course of the MMP age.

Foremost among the insights amidst said invective was the concept that in fairly direct contravention of what seemingly everybody else both inside the Party and out was saying about how to ensure NZF’s long-term survivability [i.e. shack up in coalition with one or other of the ‘major’ parties, pick up a few Ministerial portfolios, show the electorate how good we could do in Government, and then hope against all available evidence that this would somehow NOT lead to us collapsing towards either the end of the Term or the Government], if New Zealand First genuinely wished to maintain its existence – and, perhaps rather more aspirationally, its then-seeming-inexorable ascent towards displacing Labour for ‘major party’ status – that it absolutely HAD to avoid the temptations of the ‘baubles of office’, and REFRAIN from forming a coalition, confidence & supply deal, or other such arrangement with ANYBODY.

Be ‘Sinn Fein’, in other words – “For Ourselves Alone”.

Now, for a number of reasons, the original “Golden Path” article lies both unfinished and unpublished. And in any event, this is not necessarily a great tragedy. Events, as they often do in politics, wound up first overtaking and then considerably outpacing my own prognostications, rendering the strategem advanced within said document functionally moot.

After all, with the results of last month’s General Election as they are, except in the most plausibly impossible scenario of the Green Party choosing to support National into a 4th term or the much-vaunted “Grand Coalition” of Labour and National finally coming to fruition in eerie echo of 1996’s torrid possibilities … there is literally no way we get a Government here in New Zealand without New Zealand First’s say-so and involvement. Whether direct or otherwise.

Attempting to ‘abstain’ from proceedings in order to bide our time and build our strength, in other words … would most likely be a rather non-viable option.

Or would it …

You see, there’s this interesting concept which half the country seems freshly to have heard of and yet to properly get their collective head around.

That of the ‘cross-benches’.

Wherein, to put it bluntly, if it’s being done *properly* [i.e. not really what NZF did in 2005], it entails the cross-bencher MPs *abstaining* on Confidence &amp; Supply rather than entering into a C&amp;S Agreement, and voting issue-by-issue – including, potentially, on C&amp;S matters like particular tax increases or whathaveyou.

There are some serious risks, to be sure, inherent in such a position.

For one thing, you lose much of your ‘bargaining power’ with the larger party forming the hypothetical bedrock of the next Government [in this case, almost certainly National]. After all, all you’re effectively in a position to do is state that you’re allowing them a ‘free run’ [more or less] at being Government – and are rather limited in your ability to demand policy concessions, as well as ruling yourself almost definitely right out of contention for anything Ministerial [as while being a Minister Outside Cabinet is one thing … being a Minister Outside *Government* would uh … possibly be taking Winston’s known penchant for constitutional innovation straight out into the reality-bending. ‘Quantum’, you might say].

For another, it also carries with it many of the same foibles of actually opting to just outright support a Government of the blue stripe. In that many voters will nevertheless choose to blame you for making the government they DIDN’T want happen, regardless of the fact that you’re not *actively* supporting it in Parliament.

And for a third – presuming you elect *not* to abstain on C&S in a particular motion, in order to halt something you’re vehemently opposed to [say, the privatization of a major asset, for instance] … well, there is a very real risk, dependent upon the whims and whimsey of the Governor General of the day, that this might bring the entire Government down and force a new Election. [This literally happened in Australia in living memory]. At which point, most likely, your party finds itself broadsided from every direction as being responsible for the aforementioned early Election, and decimated at the polls both due to this reasoning and voters getting in behind the ‘big two’ to attempt to make sure that there’s more ‘sureity’ and no ‘hold-us-all-to-ransom’ ‘third party’ required for Government formation.

In other words, there runs a very real risk that such an arrangement’s likely and natural consequence would be to fundamentally damage MMP. More so than, arguably, our present four-party slash three-and-a-half-parties model suggests has happened already.

Yet at the same time, one might very feasibly argue that the risks inherent in actually SUPPORTING a Government on C&S or actively joining one in Coalition are not entirely dissimilar. NZF will still be blamed by a reasonable proportion of voters no matter WHICH way the Party sides; and runs the risk of looking even less independent and more slavishly devoted to bad ideas if it finds itself compelled by the terms of a C&S agreement to vote in favour of measures with which they fundamentally disagree [see, for instance, Winston’s support for the privatization of Auckland Airport in 1998], or if it alternatively winds up actively bringing down the Government rather than continue to support same.

With these facts in mind, it is perhaps arguable that the ‘wild card’ element opened up by not being bound to a C&S agreement’s terms – but instead having far greater freedom to stand and vote ‘issue by issue’ – affords a greater deterrent to the National Party [or whomever it might be] against their natural penchant towards putting forward avowedly neoliberal bad policy which NZF may both votally disagree with and actively vote against.

Perhaps.

Orrrrrrr, National takes the long view, effectively runs an inverse of something that happened in 2008 [wherein Winston did the full-on Dirty Harry “do you feel lucky, punk?” monologue at the Nats], sees NZF’s pistol-to-the-head-of-the-Prime Minister, and basically dares NZF to go through with it – on the implicit assumption that in the impending next early Election, they’ll be rid of that pesky Winston Peters bloke for good as his party is punished by voters for creating the entire situation through being principled. This, i suppose, we could call “taking the long view” – one of instead of fighting a raging forest-fire directly, simply waiting for it to naturally ‘burn itself out’.

An incredibly novel spin on all of this would be for NZF to agree to abstain on C&S in order to allow Labour to govern [i.e. pointedly refuse to give their backing to National via abstension or otherwise if they attempted to form a Government]… but alone, with the Greens supporting them on C&S yet remaining outside of a Coalition. It would be unlikely to work for any number of reasons, although remains a minorly intriguing thought-experiment.

Now as for why any of this matters … I still tend to believe that New Zealand First has an important and meaningful contribution to make to the future of our politics. That, in the words of that old song Winston kept quoting in earlier years – “the best is yet to come”. It is no coincidence that for a pretty broad swathe of our recent political history, NZF have been the sine qua non standard-bearers for the economic nationalism and emphasis upon self-determination which we are vitally going to need if we want to remain a viable nation-state on into the intermediate-distant future.

It is therefore arguably kinda important that NZ First not do what literally every other ‘minor’ party that has EVER gone into a coalition governance arrangement with one of the ‘big two’ [and National in particular, come to think of it] has done … and basically wind up imploding slash deliberately undermined and salami-tactics’d into the very edge of electoral oblivion very shortly forthwith.

I mean, if we look at the record – it’s pretty undeniable. How did New Zealand First faire in each of the 1999 and 2008 Elections? [Although admittedly 2008 was following a C&S agreement rather than a formal Coalition, and was arguably also the result of other confounding factors bearing the initials “OGG”] Or, for that matter, ACT in 2011, 2014, and 2017 following their 2008-2011 arrangement. Or the Maori Party in 2011, 2014, and 2017 after the same term working with National. Or United Future, whether as the United Party in 1999 after supporting National [not that there was to far for them to possibly decline – although their share of the list vote nearly halved, and it’s quite possible Dunne would not have managed to re-enter Parliament at that year’s Election had National not stood aside for him in Ohariu]; or as United Future in 2008 after supporting Labour, and again in a progressive slide unto the Abyss in pretty much every election since thanks at least partially to their support of National.

Oh, and for that matter – The Alliance party both imploding AND collapsing as a result of its relationship with Labour and the ‘gravitational’ pressures being exerted upon and within it due to the proximity of power (as well as *ahem* personality); with a similar, albeit slightly more drawn-out effect befalling its successor-party, the Progressive Coalition. One can even make the claim that the Green Party’s MoU support arrangement with the Labour Party has played a partial role in the former’s decline in this year’s General Election [albeit, as with NZF in 2008 – subject to an array of other confounding factors which may ameliorate and obscure this trend].

The long and the short of it is … yes, sure, the “Cross-Benches” option is HELLA risky.

But then, as far as I can see, so is getting ‘too close’ to either of the ‘major’ parties. And by “too close”, I perhaps mean “directly proximate to them at all”. I’m not sure that there is too much of a meaningful distinction in the minds of voters between “Coalition” and “Confidence & Supply Agreement Only”, after all, when it comes to psephological punishment, after all.

The choice between “Cross-Benches” and a more direct relationship, then, appears to be between something that’s yet to be really given a proper go [although one can argue that the Green Party’s choice to tacitly support Labour-NZ First in the first part of the 2005-2008 Parliamentary Term in this way means that there is both SOME precedence, as well as a pre-standing example of the party doing the abstention-supporting *not* then suffering in the polls at the next impending election for so doing – in fact, quite the opposite. They went *up*] … and something that’s been tried now well over a dozen times with the same – seemingly inevitable- result in literally each and EVERY occurrence upon which it’s been attempted.

Or, in other words … even though I’m basically propounding a completely hypothetical scenario here that I have little doubt Winston is not seriously considering for the reasons blatantly aforementioned [less power, less influence, less Office] … when stacked up against the potential [i.e. likely] alternatives and their ultimate eventual outcomes, it’s not *nearly* as irrational celestial-pastry as it might first have perhaps appeared.

Who knows how things will actually go down later this week. In a previous [never likely to see the light of day] draft of this article, I suggested that the best way to understand Winston and New Zealand First’s coalition positions was the skillful application of quantum physics. In specia, Winston as a sort of Schrodinger’s Cheshire Cat – leaving the external observer entirely unsure of what’s actually going on inside the box. [Although to quote the Cheshire Cat from the Disney production, if you’re not sure where you’re going, then it probably doesn’t matter which of the left path or the right you ultimately take…] And, for that matter, running a sort of Winstonberg Uncertainty Principle wherein one can know *either* his position on an affair or the general direction he’s taking but not both at once.

All of which, together, may already have lead to a situation wherein the regular understandings of ‘gravity’ [i.e. the relative strength of attraction between two objects – say political parties] find themselves subject to all manner of other considerations which render it no longer applicable. [Even ‘Entanglement’ perhaps being insufficient as a tool]

And which leaves us, to continue plumbing the absolute depths of what I remember from a youthful interest in certain fields of science, to a “Superposition” – that is to say, half-way between two other, otherwise arguably irreconcilable positions – as the most logical way to progress.

Will it work? Who knows.

Honestly? Who cares.

The course of New Zealand politics at this stage, is tantamount to a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury and quite potentially signifying nothing.

“THESE TALKS ARE ABOUT A CHANGE in the way this country is run. Both economically and socially.” That is how Winston Peters characterised the government formation negotiations currently drawing to a close in Wellington. But, what could his words possibly mean, in practical terms?

If seriously intentioned, Peters’ call for economic and social change would have to encompass the thorough-going “de-neoliberalisation” of New Zealand. And, yes, the obvious reference to the “denazification” of post-war Germany is quite deliberate. Between 1945 and 1947 (when a resurgent American Right began insisting that Soviet communism posed a far greater threat than the tens-of-thousands of National Socialists who were quietly re-entering German society) the Allied occupation forces undertook a serious attempt to identify and exclude all those who had facilitated the most appalling crimes in human history.

A well-organised campaign to root out neoliberalism from all of our economic and social institutions would signal that Peters’ was serious about changing the way this country is run. And for all those who pretend not to know what the term neoliberalism means, let me spell it out. I am talking about all those who seek to intrude and entrench the logic and values of the marketplace in every aspect of their fellow citizens lives.

These people have been hard at work in New Zealand society since 1984 and the damage they have inflicted upon practically all its institutions is enormous. So, how would a Labour-Green-NZ First government that was serious about redefining good government in new Zealand begin? Well, it could start by inviting Max Rashbrooke to undertake a root-and-branch reform of the State Sector Act. Bryan Gould could be asked to revise the Reserve Bank Act. Matt McCarten, Robert Reid and Maxine Gay could be given the job of beefing-up the Employment Relations Act. Claudia Orange, Annette Sykes and Moana Jackson could be tasked with fully integrating the Treaty of Waitangi into the New Zealand Constitution being drafted by Sir Geoffrey Palmer. Metiria Turei could be given a blowtorch and sent into the Ministry of Social Development.

It’s only when you starts thinking in these terms that the awful implausibility of Peters’ statement strikes home. Putting to one side the ingrained provincial conservatism of NZ First’s electoral base, there is simply no possibility of anyone in the senior ranks of the Labour Party endorsing even a pale imitation of this “de-neoliberalisation” agenda. Maybe Willie Jackson and a handful of his Maori and Pasifica colleagues, but no one else. Only the Greens could advocate seriously for this sort of root-and-branch reform – which almost certainly explains why there are no Green Party negotiators seated at the table with Winston and Jacinda!

But, if New Zealand is not going to be de-neoliberalised in any meaningful way. If neither NZ First nor Labour would entertain for a moment any of the individuals mentioned above, in any of the roles mentioned above, then what of any lasting worth could a Labour-Green-NZ First government achieve?

More importantly, perhaps, what would be in it for the Greens? If Peters’ very public characterisation of the Greens as a powerless appendage of the Labour Party, with no role at all in the government formation talks, is an accurate reflection of his attitude towards the party, then not only do the Greens have no way of influencing the shape and policies of any new centre-left government, but they will also have no place within it. As Newshub’s Lloyd Burr so succinctly put it, they are being “shafted”.

It is possible, of course, that Peters is talking-up his disdain for the Greens in order to avoid spooking his core supporters in the countryside; and that, privately, he is right behind the eco-socialists’ radical policy agenda. Except, if that is the case, then he must surely be bitterly disappointed by Labour’s extreme policy timidity. Is the sort of party that invites Sir Michael Cullen and Annette King to join its young leader at the negotiating table, really the sort of party that is getting ready to throw its weight wholeheartedly behind “a change in the way this country is run. Economically and socially”?

The election result was well predicted by the polls, Te Ururoa Flavell’s departure excepted. So, no surprises that Winston Peters is the power-broker this time. Also, no surprises that Peters has no competition for that role, given that New Zealand First is the only truly independent party in the 2017-20 Parliament. One surprise was the very high number of special votes; with Labour gaining 43 percent of the specials, and National only 36 percent. Indeed Labour fell short – by just a few votes – of gaining 47 seats; that would have made it National 55, Labour-Green 55.

The other big surprise should have been how few votes were cast in Auckland, and how many were cast in the hinterland. So far, I’m the only one to have noticed: see my Auckland Population: Evidence from the Election. As reflected in much anecdotal evidence, Auckland is shrinking relative to the rest of the country. Statistics New Zealand estimates of Auckland’s population “increasing by 50,000 a year” are based on extrapolating 2006-13 growth trends. Easily the lowest number of votes cast in 2017 were in Tāmaki-Makaurau. Auckland Central also had a very low vote count, despite 8,400 specials (28% of all votes in that electorate). Auckland may even lose an electorate when the boundaries are redrawn after the 2018 census. Auckland’s demography has changed since 2013.

Following my pre-election reflection, Chris Trotter suggested that I my misguided view was “guided by the historical precedent of the 1969 “nearly-but-not-quite” election. Yes, in part my view was; I remember the 1969 election well. Certainly in 1972, the New Zealand electorate was better prepared for innovative change. In 1969, the still-conservative electorate had been freaked by the demonstrative disruptions to Keith Holyoake’s campaign, by a Progressive Youth Movement led visibly and audibly by Tim Shadbolt. Indeed, in 1969, to win its fourth term, National in government won two seats from opposition parties (a rare event in those days): Wanganui (as it was then), a seat Labour had taken for granted; and Hobson from Social Credit. (Chris Trotter reminded me of the 1969 Bob Chapman and Keith Sinclair election story. In 1942 my father served with Chapman and Sinclair in a gun-emplacement at the end of Whangaparaoa Peninsular; I was named after Keith Sinclair.) 1969 was a recovery year; wages started growing substantially, after a decade of general wage orders that did not allow for productivity gains. Also the moon-landings had been a marvellous distraction.

1969 was also the first election in which South Island electorate quota was adopted, meaning an increase in the size of parliament after each subsequent census (until MMP refixed parliament at 120 seats). Under the FPP version of the formula (ie had we retained FPP in 1993, we would have had over 120 MPs in 2020. (On that matter, by the end of this century, we will revert to FPP unless in future the South Island population grows as fast as the North Island population.)

I disagree with Chris Trotter about Labour’s relationship between 1935 and 1938. Sure, the 1935 Labour vote was well short of 50%. Indeed 10% of the vote went to Independents that year. Labour also had Ratana and Country Party support. What really made it (mathematically) for Labour was the spoiling effect of the new and short-lived far-right Democratic Party, which took eight percent of the vote. What really clinched it for Labour was its promise, on the hustings, to introduce universal and largely unconditional social benefits. Here we must appreciate that the cruel bureaucracy which surrounded entitlement to benefits in the depression years was not unlike the bureaucratic apparatus that is creating a mental health epidemic today; the very real problem that the Green Party tried to start a conversation about this election.

For much of the time, Labour in 1936 and 1937 tried to backslide on its electoral promise. The left of Labour wanted to focus on redistribution through raising conditional benefits. The right of Labour looked to create an early version of Roger Douglas’ 1974 actuarial superannuation scheme. With the help of some public servants, and with the coming election in mind, Savage rejected both of these, and resurrected the universal scheme from the bottom drawer. It was an extraordinary vote-winner. And, as Elizabeth Hanson pointed out in 1980, it came in well under budget.

This was Labour coming into the 20th century, creating a comprehensive social support system, and not just extending the ‘selective’ class-based welfare that developed in Australasia in the 1890s. That system still forms the philosophical basis for Australian social welfare; refer to Frank Castles’ 1985 thesis: The Working Class and Welfare. The other part (in 1936) of Labour’s entering the 20th century was the use of new monetary policies – specifically Reserve Bank credit – to enable the state-housing scheme that not only housed New Zealanders but also created the multiplier effects that got New Zealand back to full employment by 1939. (Chris Trotter’s Adults in the Room? is a particularly worrying exposition of how much courage and mental catch-up Labour still requires.)

Labour in 2020 needs to adopt 21st century macroeconomic management philosophies. In other parts of the world these began after the global financial crisis, with fiscal stimuli and quantitative easing. Not in New Zealand, however. New Zealand will need to adopt 21st century monetary policies at some time in the next decade. And Japan has shown the world how public debt can be a 21st century solution to late-twentieth century public investment shortfalls and private miserliness.

The world in the twenty-first century can address its inequality problems only through the adoption of public equity solutions. Otherwise the latter part of the century can only become as dystopic as so much of today’s contemporary popular fiction suggests. This conclusion is formed by the remorseless arithmetic of increasing inequality; it is not formed by an anti-rich ideology.

On this last matter of public equity, Labour can start by either adopting the simplified tax scale I have suggested or by embracing and reconceptualising the misnamed Family Incomes package legislated from the 2017 Budget. (It’s misnamed because it provides benefits for individuals as well as to families.) Labour says it is ‘tax cuts for the rich’. But it’s not really so. National’s legislation neither reduces the top tax marginal rate nor raises the threshold for which that rate becomes effective.

The 2017 Budget creates and extends what can alternatively be called a Public Equity Benefit (in this case, upto $195 per week). A simple reconceptualisation converts a ‘tax cut’ into a ‘benefit increase’. That reconceptualisation – embracing ‘public equity’ as a means of distributing capital income (social profit) to the masses – takes us into 21st century thinking. (The cheaper alternative creates an unconditional Public Equity Benefit of $175 per week.) In both cases, we have an unconditional though not universal benefit, created at zero cost from a tax-benefit-accounting framework that is relevant to present times. Of particular importance, changing the way we account for income taxes and benefits today creates the means to equalise (and raise) equity benefits in the future. It’s simple, it’s necessary, and it’s twenty-first century thinking.

Let’s make the next decade about solutions, not about problems. Let’s apply more new thinking to what we are for, less to what we are against. It doesn’t matter who is Prime Minister. We can have a twenty-first century multi-party democracy, through which all good ideas can be placed on the table, and considered on their merits.

WHAT’S WINSTON LOOKING FOR in a Labour-Green-NZ First Government? What must he be convinced of before he tells Bill English and the 44.4 percent of New Zealanders who voted for the National Party that, this time, he and his party are signing-up with the Left?

First and foremost, he needs to be convinced that such a government will be a success. Between now and 2020, Winston is looking to secure an enduring political and historical legacy. That can’t happen if the government he imposes on New Zealand turns out to be a fractious shambles – disaster is not the legacy he’s looking for.

So, as he receives Labour’s offers and makes his counter-offers, he will be watching closely and listening carefully for the slightest sign, the faintest note, of the Hallelujah Song. Winston needs to know that Labour’s reach continues to exceed its grasp: that its MPs strive for something beyond mere political power; that it is still a party of nation-builders.

He will be studying Jacinda Ardern especially closely. Does she fully appreciate the sheer weight of the hopes and dreams New Zealanders have heaped upon her? Is she ready, truly ready, to fulfil them? And, does she show even the slightest sign of knowing how? Is hers the principal voice among Labour’s team of negotiators? Or, does she constantly defer to her friend and ally, Grant Robertson? And does Grant, in turn, look to his mentor and patron, Sir Michael Cullen, for the right words at the right time? And has Sir Michael ever known how to sing the Hallelujah Song?

Objection will be raised that Winston’s a hard-nosed old bugger; and that he’s much more likely to be found singing along with Kenny Rogers’ “The Gambler”, than attempting to join in some airy-fairy Hallelujah Song. That will certainly be the case when he’s sitting down with Bill English and his wise-guys. With National, everything will be hard-nosed and zero-sum. He is, when all is said and done, of National’s tribe: they know him, and he knows them.

Winston is fluent in all the transactional languages of the Right. When he’s with National it will all be a matter of things given, things taken; advantages secured, potential gains foregone. Like Kenny Rogers’ Gambler, he’ll tote-up his winnings and calculate his losses – but never at the table. NZ First’s and National’s negotiations will be conducted according to the bloodless protocols of businessmen exercising due diligence on a proposition their principals will be asked to either endorse or reject.

But National is Winston’s fall-back position. It is the party he’ll turn to if, in spite of his best efforts, he can find no trace of the Hallelujah Song. He knows full-well that a Labour-Green-NZ First Government will only work if it is animated by a unifying determination to roll-back thirty years of ignorance, cruelty and greed. He will be looking for the unmistakeable signs of a political army getting ready to march. Not only must he find evidence of solidarity, but also of that fierce delight which people display when they find themselves in the company of like minds and kindred spirits.

If that’s present in the room when he meets with Labour’s negotiators, then he really has no need to meet with the Greens. If he encounters a Labour Party charged with the thrill of solidarity and primed for action, then the Greens will be too – only more so. In a room like that there’s no need for the brute diction of win and lose, profit and loss. He and his team will know that NZ First, Labour and the Greens can do this in a way that will allow him to leave politics as an honoured and beloved statesman.

But, if all he hears in that room is the language of caution and denial. If all he’s given are countless reasons why things cannot be done. If all he senses on the other side of the table is a supercilious disdain for himself and his party, and open contempt for the Greens. Well then, he will listen politely and walk back sadly to the barren realism of Bill and his buddies.

In the absence of the Left’s uplifted voices, Winston will take what he can get from the Right. Better to deal with people who have never known that such transformational music exists, than be disappointed by Labour-Green politicians who no longer consider the Hallelujah Song worth singing.

I am concerned at your reported comments in the media – particularly those in the Waikato Times – where you are reported to have stated that you “have the full confidence of the Board”, in relation to the issues arising from the CEO’s expenses,

As this issue was not raised with the full Board, there is no basis for you saying this, and it is not accurate.

I have already raised in writing a number of concerns about the processes, and your role in them, relating to control of, and approval for, the CEO’s expenses and related matters.

Explicitly, I don’t have confidence in the way you have handled this issue, for the following reasons:

The CEO is required to file an annual expenses return by August of each year. As you are the only person with the authority to approve the CEO’s expenses, I believe – with or without staff reports – you ought to have known that this had not been done from August 2015 onwards, and ought to have been taking action over this failure from that time – almost two years before you informed the Board of the concerns.

A second annual CEO expenses return was required to be filed in August 2016, but was not.

A former member of Parliament has publicly stated that she met with you prior to the Nigel Murray’s formal appointment to warn you of issues with Murray’s work as a CEO as his previous place of employment. She has stated that you rejected her warning, but would ‘keep an eye on the matter’ (my paraphrasing).

You have not required any report back from any of the overseas travel for Conferences and other matters that you authorised for the CEO, or were taken without authorisation. Such action would have demonstrated that you were ‘keeping an eye on’ the CEO.

When the 2015 and 2016 CEO expenses reports were finally filed late around Xmas 2016, you did not take any action to check that they were accurate or complete. It appears from public comments you have now made that those reports are very likely to have included unauthorised expenditure that is now going to be claimed back from the former CEO. Irregularities in these reports could have been found and addressed 9 months ago, had you fulfilled what I believe is your obligation to be on top of the CEO’s expenses, on behalf of the Board.

The fact that the Xmas 2016 media article you refer to highlighted the very high quantum of expenses set out in those returns, ought to have triggered checking or investigative action by yourself. That fact that you did not take any action at that point – that you have informed us about – has put the Board in some jeopardy, and perhaps the whole DHB organisation.

From information you have now given to the public, it seems that you informed the Ministry of Health (and perhaps other Government entities) of the staffs concerns about the CEO’s expenses some three weeks or more before you informed the Board. While I have no problem with you keeping the Ministry informed, I believe the Board should have been immediately informed of the information you had received – the Board is not an afterthought, it is a legally responsible part of the processes that ought to have been followed.

Following your first provision of information to the Board about the CEO’s expenses issue in July this year, the process being followed has not been made clear at several steps, until myself and other Board members have asked questions and requested responses.

I have no problem with the way you handled matters at the meeting on 5th October, and I willingly participated in that particular part of the process, and excluded myself from the part of the process in order to help ‘clear the path’ for the Board; but I have problems with the way the matter was handled, or otherwise, for the two years prior to 5th October, and with your public statement on 5th October that you had the full confidence of the Board.

I agree that the Office of the Auditor-General report into Board processes will help give answers going forwards, from my past experience with that organisation, and from the questions I asked of them at a recent meeting, I do not think they will cover everything, and I also look forward to their explanation as to why they did not note that a requirement such as the annual filing of the CEO’s expenses had not been filed for two years in a row, now three.

Yours sincerely

Dave Macpherson

Waikato DHB Member

David Macpherson is TDB’s mental health blogger. He became involved in mental health rights after the mental health system allowed his son to die. He is now a Waikato DHB Member.

I’ve spent much of the last week reading Vincent O’Malley’s recently published book “The Great War for New Zealand” which tells the story of Imperial Britain’s 1863 invasion of the Waikato and its aftermath.

Unlike other histories which deal more narrowly with the conflict itself, this book puts the invasion in a 200 year context – from the early 1800s when Waikato was a highly productive market garden for the settlement of Auckland through to the 1995 signing of the Waikato-Tainui treaty settlement agreement.

Through this broad sweep of history we see the events unfold in the context of the motivations of the main protagonists – motivations revealed and exposed in greater detail than before.

The lies and propaganda of war, so familiar to those who follow international conflicts, are all there.

In the case of the Waikato Governor George Grey hyped up a fictitious threat of imminent attack on Auckland by supporters of the Kingitanga. The most recent parallel example might be the 2003 invasion of Iraq orchestrated by the US, UK and Australia based on fictitious missile threats and “weapons of mass destruction” to justify war.

Before the invasion and at each stage of the conflict Maori sought peace but the colonial government wanted land, not peace – not dissimilar to Israeli motivations today as they steal land by waging endless war on Palestinians. The invasion of Waikato was prosecuted till the imperial army had extended its reach to the Puniu river and subsequently confiscated 1.2 million acres of New Zealand’s most valuable farmland in the Waikato region.

So what have we learnt? We all know that the history books we grew up with and which described the “Maori wars” were a lie but we don’t see this conflict as the “great war for New Zealand” which it was. Neither is it acknowledged for the devastating impact it had on Maori.

We are currently riding a wave of centenary events from the First World War. We have reached Passchendaele with plenty more to come. Millions have been spent by the government to remember what is described as “heroic sacrifice” by New Zealand soldiers in a war on the other side of the world on behalf of the British empire. As a proportion of our population we sent more troops a greater distance to fight a war than any human society in the history of the planet.

1.7% of the New Zealand population were killed in WWI – a devastating number recalled on memorials in every small town and city through the country. Waikato Maori lost 4% of their population killed in the invasion of Waikato – a far greater level of sacrifice and suffering by a people fighting a defensive war against an invading army and yet this is largely unknown and unrecognised.

It would be much more appropriate for New Zealand to scrap ANZAC DAY (25 April – dated for the landing at Gallipoli in World War I) and shift our national remembrance of war to 12 July – the day in 1863 that imperial troops crossed the Mangatawhiri River and the great war for New Zealand began.

With the counting of Special Votes, a clearer picture has emerged as to what voters in this country have chosen. The majority have voted against National and it’s allies.

In the face of childish temper-tantrums from some media commentariate/journalists, and machiavellian machinations from the National Party and it’s fellow-travellers on the Right, you have held firm to wait until 7 October. This was a proper course of action, and you have rightly stood by it (as I wrote here: Once Upon a Time in Mainstream Media Fairytale Land).

Now comes the part where you negotiate with National and Labour. On this point I have no idea if you have made up your mind or not. I will assume you are still open to the various options and permutations available to you and other parties.

If you happen to be reading this, let me offer my thoughts on this matter.

National has been in power for nine years. During that time, it has allowed a toxic ‘cocktail’ of social and environmental problems (I refuse to be PC and refer to them as “issues”) to brew and fester. Our media are full of daily headlines of problems confronting us, and they seem to be worsening – not improving.

.

.

There is not a day or week that goes by without another in a long – and lengthening – series of ‘horror’ stories that forty years ago would have been unimaginable in our ‘Godzone’.

.

.

And the most appalling fact – it is all so needless and preventable. We know what the problems are. What appears to be lacking is the will to implement sensible, sound policies to address them.

By 2016, that number had fallen to 61,600 (plus a further 2,700 leased) – a dramatic shortfall of 7,400 properties.

Is it any wonder we have families living in cars in the second decade of the 21st Century?

Even in my own street; just behind the house that I live in, a family came within days of being made homeless. Imagine, Mr Peters, a Kiwi family – including a six-month old baby – forced out onto the street.

.

.

When did homelessness for entire families ever become the ‘norm’ in this country? (Many would assert – with some validity – that it began in 1984, with the advent of Rogernomics and the rise of neo-liberalism.)

There are other stories of growing deprivation. Children going to school with no breakfast or lunch. Families working several jobs and still unable to make ends meet. Massive student debt burdening young people. NGOs having their funding cut – though strangely enough, National always seems to be able to find spare cash to spend on flag referenda; farms in the middle of the Saudi Desert; corporate welfare such as cash hand-outs to Tiwai Point aluminium smelter; yacht races, etc.

This is the government you are now potentially willing to ally yourself with.

That is nine years of failed policies; worsening social problems; and degraded environment that you will be inheriting and putting into the laps of yourself any of your MPs who are “lucky” enough to be allocated ministerial portfolios.

A coalition with National comes with several tonnes of some very bad, smelly ‘baggage’.

That is what you will be signing up for if you snuggle up with National: all the accumulated crap of the last nine years. I hope you’re ready for it, Mr Peters. That’s a lot of trouble you’re willing to take on.

By now, you may be thinking what I’m thinking… A deal with Labour and the Green Party is suddenly taking on a very rosy tint.

It’s your call, Mr Peters. Though if I may be so bold – it’s not much of a choice really…

National with it’s accumulated nine years of failures and mounting bad media coverage – versus a fresh new government without any foul-smelling baggage.

I know which I would choose.

Remember the last time you chose to ally with a government that had been in power for just two terms and was increasingly unpopular with it’s failing health service; severe police cuts; housing problems, etc?

If I recall, that did not end well, either…

.

.

I hope you make the right choice, Mr Peters. For yourself, your Party colleagues, but most importantly, for the people of this country.

(1) The rise of Labour (aka, the “Jacinda Effect”) appears to have stripped support from the Maori Party, NZ First, and the Greens. Any shift of voters from NZ First to National was insufficient to boost the Nats percentage of total votes.

(2) As expected, Special Votes have favoured the Left.

(3) Winston Peters has been proven correct to wait before Special Votes were counted and announced before initiating coalition talks. A National-NZ First Coalition (65 seats) would prove little different to a Labour-Green-NZ First coalition (63 seats).

With only a two seat difference (three, with ACT), Peters is in a better position to consider a three-way coalition with Labour and the Greens. The question is, will he align himself with the 1,152,075 who voted National – or the 1,305,333 who voted against the Nats, and supported Labour, the Greens, and NZ First?

National may be the ‘largest’ party in Parliament – but the largest bloc of voters was Labour-Green-NZ First.

“This will be the last press conference I am going to hold until after the 7th of October… I can’t tell you what we are going to do until we have seen all the facts.

I can’t talk to you until I know what the 384,000 people who have cast their vote said…”

And you know what? He’s 100% right.

All the media pundit speculation; all the ambushing at airport terminals; all the annoyingly repetitive questions are utterly pointless. Peters simply cannot say anything meaningful until 7 October because the 2017 Election has not yet fully played out.

This is not a game of rugby where, after eighty minutes, a score determines a winner and loser (or draw). In this game of “electoral rugby”, the score will not be delivered for two weeks.

The media – still feeling the adrenaline from Election Night “drama” – appears not to have realised this. The 24-Hour News Cycle is not geared toward a process lasting days or weeks.

One journalist writing for the NZ Herald, Audrey Young, even suggested that initiating coalition talks before the Specials were counted and announced was somehow a “good thing”;

It is surprising that NZ First has not begun talking to National yet, at a point when it has maximum leverage.

Not doing so before the special votes runs the risk having less leverage after the specials are counted should there be no change in the seats, or in the unlikely event of National gaining.

That bizarre suggestion could be taken further; why not announce a government before any votes are counted?

Pushed to maximum absurdity, why not announce a government before an election even takes place? Banana republics fully recommend this technique.

It says a lot about the impatience and immaturity of journalists that they are demanding decisions on coalition-building before all votes are counted. It is doubtful if any journalist in Europe – which has had proportional representation far longer than we have – would even imagine making such a nonsensical suggestion.

“Now frankly if that’s the value you place on journalistic integrity you go right ahead, but the reality is you could point to the Electoral Commission and others and ask yourself why is it that 384,000 people will not have their vote counted until the 7th of October.

Maybe then you could say to yourselves that may be the reason why New Zealand First has to withhold its view because we don’t know yet what the exact precise voice of the New Zealand people is.

All I’m asking for is a bit of understanding rather than the tripe that some people are putting out, malicious, malignant, and vicious in the extreme.”

The mainstream media did not take kindly to the critical analysis which they themselves usually mete out to public figures. They reported Peters’ press conference in unflattering terms and a vehemence usually reserved for social/political outcasts who have somehow dared challenge the established order of things;

Or satirising Peters for being in a position to coalesce either with Labour or National. Despite this being a feature of all proportionally-elected Parliaments around the world, this has somehow taken the mainstream media by surprise;

It could have been so different. He could have simply said he couldn’t disclose his negotiating position until after the counting of the special votes and that he could not say who he would choose. Everyone would have accepted that as a fair stance.

Really? “Everyone would have accepted that as a fair stance”?!

How many timers did Peters tell journalists that he “couldn’t disclose his negotiating position until after the counting of the special votes and that he could not say who he would choose” and how many times did those same journalists (or their colleagues) persist?

I have considerable respect for Mr Hickey’s researching and reporting skills. He is one of New Zealand’s most talented journalists/commentators.

On this point, however, he has over-looked the stubborn persistence of his colleagues in their unrelenting demands on Peters.

That media drivel has extended to journalists reporting on a non-existent, fabricated “story” – a potential National-Green (or “Teal”) Coalition.

Nowhere was this suggestion made seriously – except by National-leaning right-wing commentators, National party supporters, and National politicians. It should be blatantly clear to the most apolitical person that,

(a) such a coalition has been dismissed by the Green Party on numerous occassions

(b) such a coalition would be impractical due to wide policy differences between National and the Greens

(c) such a coalition scenario was being made only as a negotiation tactic by National to leverage against NZ First, and

(d) such a coalition would offer very little benefit to the Greens.

Green party leader, James Shaw, had to repeat – on numerous occassions – that any notion of a National-Green deal was out of a question;

“Our job is to form a government with the Labour Party, that’s what I said on election night, that’s what I campaigned on for the last 18 months and that’s what we are busy working on.

I said on election night that I think the numbers are there for a new government and that’s what we are working on, so everything else frankly is noise and no signal.”

This did not stop the mainstream media from breathlessly (breathe, Patrick, breathe!) reporting repeating the “story” without analysing where it was emanating from: the Right. Or who it would benefit: National.

Writing a series of stories on an imaginary National-Green coalition scenario, Fairfax ‘s political reporter Tracy Watkins could almost be on the National Party’s communications-team payroll;

Metiria Turei’s departure from the Greens co-leadership seems to be what lies behind National’s belief that a deal may be possible – she was always cast as an implacable opponent to any deal with National. James Shaw is seen as being more of a pragmatist.

But National would only be prepared to make environmental concessions – the Greens’ social and economic policy platform would be seen as a step too far. Big concessions on climate change policy would also be a stumbling block.

On both those counts the Greens would likely rule themselves out of a deal – co-leader James Shaw has made it clear economic and social policy have the same priority as environmental policy.

There is a view within National, however, that a deal with the Greens would be more forward and future looking than any deal with NZ First.

One concern is what is seen as an erratic list of NZ First bottom lines, but there is also an acknowledgement that National was exposed on environmental issues like dirty water in the campaign.

That’s why National insiders say an approach to the Greens should not be ruled out.

But Watkins was not completely oblivious to the Kiwi-version of ‘Game of Thrones‘. She briefly alluded to comprehending that National is pitting the Greens against NZ First;

Senior National MPs have made repeated overtures through the media that its door is open to the Greens, who would have more leverage in negotiations with the centre-right than the centre-left.

Watkins and her colleagues at Fairfax made no attempt to shed light on National’s “repeated overtures”. She and other journalists appeared content to be the ‘conduit’ of National’s machiavellian machinations as prelude to coalition talks.

Such was the vacuum caused by the interregnum between Election Day and Special Votes day. That vacuum – caused by the news blackout until coalition talks begin in earnest after 7 October – had obviously enabled sensationalism to guide editorial policy.

Writing for another Fairfax newspaper, the Sunday Star Times, so-called “journalist” Stacey Kirk cast aside any remaining mask of impartiality and came out guns blazing, demanding a National Green Coalition;

They should, and the reasons they won’t work with National are getting flimsier by the day. But they won’t – it’s a matter that strikes too close to the heart of too many of their base – and for that reason, they simply can’t.

[…]

For all their dancing around each other, National is serious when it says it would be happy to talk to the Greens. But it’s also serious when it says it knows it has to make big environmental moves regardless.

If the Greens are serious about putting the environment above politics – and the long-term rebuild of the party – they really should listen.

Kirk’s piece could easily have emanated from the Ninth Floor of the Beehive – not the Dominion Post Building in downtown Wellington.

The media pimping for a fourth National-led coalition, involving the Greens, would be comical if it weren’t potentially so damaging to our democracy. Media are meant to question political activity such as coalition-building – not aggressively promote them in an openly partisan manner. Especially not for the benefit of one dominant party. And especially not to install that political party to government.

“I genuinely think there is common ground between the National Party and the Green Party, which could result in practical policy wins for New Zealand. Environmental issues such as carbon neutrality and social issues like child poverty come to mind.”

Mr Anthony happens to be a National Party supporter.

Mr Anthony failed to explain what National has been doing the last nine years to protect the environment; why rivers have continued to be degraded; why the agricultural sector has been left out of the emissions trading scheme; why National has squandered billions on new roading projects instead of public transport; etc, etc. Also, Mr Anthony has failed to ask why National has not willingly adopted Green Party policies in the last nine years.

What has stopped them? Party policies are not copyright. After all, you don’t have to be in coalition with a party to take on their policies.

“I would rather drink hemlock than go with the National Party. The last thing I want to see is the Green Party or any other party propping them up to put them back into power. They’ve done enough damage.”

“A slim majority of voters did vote for change, and so that’s what I’m working on… We campaigned on a change of Government, and I said at the time it was only fair to let voters know what they were voting for – are you voting for the status quo, or are you voting for change?”

Other individuals pimping for a Nat-Green coalition are sundry National party MPs such as Paula Bennett or former politicians such as Jim Bolger.

All of which was supported by far-right blogger, Cameron Slater’s “intern staff”, on the “Whaleoil” blog;

“Currently we are sitting in wait for old mate Winston Peters to choose who is going to run the country. After watching all the pundits in media talk about what the next government would look like, it started to annoy me that everyone has been ruling out a National/Green coalition and rightly so as both parties have basically written it off.

[…]

A quick Blue-Green arrangement with the appropriate Government Ministries assigned to Green Ministers would kill the NZ First posturing dead and would probably be the death knell for NZ First forever once Mr Peters resigns.”

National’s pollster and party apparatchik, David Farrar, was also actively pimping for a National-Green Coalition;

.

.

When even the far-right are salivating at the prospect of a Blue-Green coalition, you know something is seriously askew.

However, judging by comments posted by Kiwiblog’s readers, the prospect of a Blue-Green coalition does not sit well with his audience.

As an interesting side-note, both Whaleoil and Kiwiblog both published their first stories on a Blue-Green coalition around 27 and 28 September. The Tory communications-strategy memo talking up a Blue-Green scenario appears to have been sent to Slater and Farrar at the same time.

It beggars belief that very few media commentators have picked up on what is really the bleedin’ obvious: National’s strategy is obviously a ploy to leverage against NZ First.

Of all the pundits, only one person seems to have sussed what was really happening and why. Otago University law professor and political commentator, Andrew Geddis, put things very succinctly when he wrote for Radio NZ on 30 September;

Media coverage of the post-election period echoes this existential angst. With Winston Peters declaring that he – sorry, New Zealand First – won’t make any decisions on governing deals until after the final vote count is announced on October 7, we face something of a news vacuum.

Commentators valiantly have attempted to fill this void with fevered speculation about who Peters likes and hates, or fantastical notions that a National-Greens deal could be struck instead…

That is as close to sensible commentary as we’ve gotten the last two weeks.

The 2017 General Election may be remembered in future – not for Winston Peters holding the balance of power – but for the unedifying rubbish churned out by so-called professional, experienced journalists. In their thirst for something – anything!! – to report, the media commentariate have engaged in onanistic political fantasies.

They have also wittingly allowed themselves to be National’s marionettes – with strings reaching up to the Ninth Floor.

The National-Green Coalition fairytale promulgated by some in the media was a glimpse into the weird world of journalistic daydreaming. In other words, New Zealanders just got a taste of some real fake news.

Like children in the back seat of a car on a two-week long drive, this is what it looks like when bored journalists and media commentators become anxious and frustrated. Their impatience gets the better of them.

When the antiquated, binary system of First Past the Post was replaced with a more sophisticated; more representative; more inclusive MMP in the 1990s, our political system matured. Our Parliament became more ethnically and gender diverse. We even elected the world’s first transgender MP.

MMP is complex and requires careful consideration and time.

It is fit-for-purpose for the complexities of 21st Century New Zealand.